Victor Davis Hanson On The Left’s Assault On Everything
Historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson joined me to discuss the collapse of the domestic political discourse and the hard left lurch of the Democrats:
Audio:
Transcript:
HH: Pleased to welcome back Victor Davis Hanson, historian and classicist, host of the Victor Davis Hanson podcast. And I want to begin there, Victor. The last time we talked, it was to talk about your book, The End Of Everything: How Wars Descend Into Annihilation. And this is really part two of that. But I first want to clarify for people like me. Your podcast moved. You migrated over to the Daily Signal, which is a great platform. But all of a sudden, I had to go find the podcast again. Did you hear from a lot of people about that?
VDH: Yeah. Yes. Yes, I think what happened was we were moving for a variety of reasons, and the former platform wanted to retain the name Victor Davis Hanson show, so we had to, the Daily Signal had to come up with a new title, and that confused people. Victor Davis Hanson In His Own Words is what they chose. And then, you know, Hugh, there’s something called the keys, and that prior platform had them. So we had to create new ones and a whole new thing. And then we used that 10-day period, I had some health issues that I went up and had a lot of scans and stuff. So we tried to just shut it, we didn’t mean to shut it down, but it turned out to be much more disruptive than we thought. But everything’s back on normal, and I think we’re back almost to our normal audience.
HH: Now I found you by simply Googling the Daily Signal and Victor Davis Hanson, and I was able to subscribe again. And now, I assume it will show up in my podcast feed. But I know a lot of people have come to rely on that for sort of the opposite of what we’re going to talk about. It retains its standards. It retains an emphasis on fact and on memory and on civilization. And a lot is declining, and I want to begin there.
VDH: Yes.
HH: I want to begin with two or three immediate headlines. The first immediate, I’ll give you all three. The first immediate headline – President Trump is adding a ballroom to the White House. The historically illiterate are acting like the East Wing is somehow sacred ground. It’s not. Number two – Jen Psaki, who is a public figure and not dumb, she’s actually got knowledge of the business, went on a podcast called I’ve Had It with two middle-aged ladies from Oklahoma – an interior designer and a divorce lawyer who simply touched the depths of internet vulgarity, profanity, and left-wing slimeballing every single episode. But she engaged in suggesting that Usha Vance, the Second Lady, had been a victim of domestic abuse. And I’m sure they’re laughing it off as joke, joke, but it’s not. And then finally, and most importantly, Comrade Mamdani is going to become mayor of New York. So all of a sudden, the End Of Everything becomes very, very real to me. I’m beginning to worry about sort of the collapse of all guardrails in the United States. Do you?
VDH: Yeah, I do. I do, especially the historical ignorance. As you know, Richard Nixon put in a bowling alley. Gerry Ford wanted a pool. He tore up the garden out there, put it there. I think it’s still there. I’ve seen it. So presidents do this all the time. And FDR had a place where he could exercise. It became, I think, later the Press Club. So there’s been all sorts of alterations. It’s not, and usually, a president who authorizes this, in the case of Nixon and Ford, fundraised for it. It doesn’t come out of the public purse. So this idea, and everybody, when I looked at this, a lot of presidents and people have said this is unfortunate that when there are state dinners, they don’t have adequate facilities. It’s been something that’s come up a lot. So Trump’s a builder. He’s using private funds. And I looked at the drawings. It seems to be in character with the architecture and style of the White House. But all they did was look at the demolition of the East part of the White House where it’s going to be, and they just said he’s tearing up as if they’ve never seen demolition before. That was really demagogic commentary, so I don’t take it very seriously. But they feel that they want to advance this narrative that Donald Trump is, you know, he likes guilt things. He’s crass. He’s crude. He’s tearing things up. He’s putting a T over everything, and that’s not true.
HH: So into that narrative of crass and crude comes the podcast of the left, from the original Pod Bros of the Obama era up through the I’ve Had It podcast. Anything now goes that monetizes, Victor. And the I’ve Had It podcast has 1.2 million subscribers on YouTube. There’s an audience that is monetized by being crude, vulgar, and frankly, stupid. It’s kind of stupid. Does that presage anything for the society at large that there’s an audience for this?
VDH: Well, we have 340 million people, so everybody to his own tastes. But I think, really, the subtext of that whole incident is we have been told that Donald Trump was inseparable from the MAGA agenda, that he was the sun, and without him, there would be no sunlight, so to speak. And then when he nominated J.D. Vance, they said this was a critical blunder, because he was white, male, like Trump. He offered no diversity. He was in Ohio. That was a red state, given. And then, he turned out to, you know, to upset all of those earlier speculations by being a force multiplier. And that’s why Trump appointed him, because he went on to eviscerate all during the campaign the Sunday news shows. Anybody on the left who thought that he was going to tangle with J.D. Vance ended up on the wrong side of that debate. So then, I think, and you add Marco Rubio to the equation, I think they’re very worried now that there is going to be a continuum of the nationalist-populist MAGA people, and that the Republican Party is not going to go back to Bob Dole or something like that, which they would like. And that worries them, so now they’re looking at the next generation in addition to Trump, and they’ve gone after Rubio as well. But I think they’re going to, we’re going to see more attacks on Vance like this.
HH: Oh, the demonization of anyone with talent on the right, I remember when Senator Cotton destroyed the New York Times editorial room single-handedly, and then when he came out and said this was probably a lab leak from Wuhan, the left went after him.
VDH: Yes.
HH: There are a lot of them. Senator Cruz, Elise Stefanik, there’s a big bench of young Republicans who must scare the left, because they’re locked into, and this brings me to subject three of the intro, Mamdani. And he’s, I think he’s a disaster for the Democrats, but I still don’t want him to win, Victor Davis Hanson. Do you? Because I think he’ll destroy the city.
VDH: No, I don’t want him to win at all. When you look at what happened to Cuba, and when you look at what happened in Venezuela, or you look at what happened in 1917, the Russians, there’s a pattern there where the Bolshevik element poses as a socialist, and they say they’re not going to disrupt, and they’re willing to work with people. And then what happens is usually, a lot of conservative or aristocrats, or what they would call oligarchs, make private deals for concessions. That’s what Hugo Chavez did, and that’s what Maduro’s doing. And they try to coopt the elite, and then basically we will leave you alone as we destroy the city. So they’re very insidious. And once they get into power, they do a lot of damage. He’s very different even than Bill de Blasio. He’ll do a lot more damage in four years than de Blasio ever had imagined. And so no, I don’t like this idea that maybe this is good. I think George Will had advanced that theory. This will be good so we get, every once in a while, we need a dose of socialism to shock us. No, I don’t want to be a lab rat in that process.
HH: I agree.
VDH: This is a beautiful city.
HH: Our friend, Mark Levin, said everyone is underplaying how important New York is as the financial capital of the world, and is the cultural hub of the United States that it shares with a couple of other places. And I do believe, they have 300,000 employees in the city of New York. Mr. Mamdani, Comrade Mamdani, has never run anything bigger than an office of 10-12 people. I mean, how badly could it go, VDH?
VDH: It could be, I think, well, I don’t think people appreciate that New York historically and geographically is integral to the financial system of the United States. And it’s got a long tradition. It’s not that far from Washington, D.C. And if you were to socialize it, which he says that I think he will, then you’re going to see a mass flight. And I’m not so sure that it could be in Palm Beach or in Miami as effective as it is in New York. You’d have to give up all those institutions. And I don’t know what it would become, but it wouldn’t become Wall Street. I don’t know what Wall Street would do if he, if you have a socialist…basically, when he says he wants to seize the means of production, and he said that, then you, it’s not a slur to say that he’s a communist. That comes right out of Friedrich Engels’ vocabulary. So I’m very worried, and he hates talent. He wants to get rid, he’s back and forth, but like anything that’s elite, anything that represents anything other than equality of result, he’s against. And he’s also, to be frank, Hugh, he represents something that’s broken down in the immigration system where we used to acculturate, integrate, assimilate immigrants from places less prosperous, secure than the United States. But there’s this pattern where he and his family have come from Uganda, which is basically a failed place, and then they’ve done spectacularly well. His father’s an endowed professor. His mother is a very well-known filmmaker. He grew up in affluence sort of, he has the same idea of AOC or now the multimillionaire Ilhan Omar that you come to this country, and you immediately start to say you know, I’m not going to enrich it with my literature or music or fashion or food. I want to change fundamentally the way it works – the Constitution, our protocols of 250 years without any acknowledgement that I wouldn’t come here if they, if I was able to change it, then I would have never come, because it would represent what I left. And that’s what, a lot of Americans are very confused about why would people come over here and want to change the system that attracted them in the first place?
HH: Because the lust for power and money comes with change.
VDH: Yes. Yes.
HH: How this is the big overarching question. You and I won’t be around in 50 years, absent medical miracles to see what’s become of the republic. But my grandchildren will be. Do you, I’ve always said rather blithely that the Constitution is very strong, that these were geniuses who constructed it, and Lincoln reconstructed it. But do you think it’s strong enough to put up with all these various tensions? Or are we back in 1968 and a continuation of the MLK-Robert Kennedy assassinations, the Weather Underground, the violence, the Vietnam War-induced hysteria? Are we right back there?
VDH: Well, I think this new jacobin left feels that on every issue – the border, illegal immigration, crime, energy, they don’t have a majority, and they don’t have enough charisma. Maybe Mamdani’s charismatic, but outside of him in New York, he would fail. They don’t have charismatic leaders like a Clinton or an Obama to advance an unpopular agenda in the way they did. And so they feel that the traditional political process is not going to favor them. And so they look for alternate means, and one of them, to be frank, was an open border. 12 million people, 55 million people now…
HH: Sure.
VDH: 16% of the population was not born in the United States. Here in California, 27% of the population was not born in California, and they feel that that demographic is need of entitlements and subsidies for housing and health, and education and food. And they’re a constituency. And then they also feel, they’re the ones that are always talking about changing the filibuster, changing the Electoral College, bringing in Washington, D.C, Puerto Rico for four new senators, altering the composition of the Supreme Court, which I think has been inert, basically, at nine justices since 1869, getting rid of the filibuster as I said. So they want to change the system from a Constitutional republic to something, I don’t know, like out of Ancient Athens where everybody gets in there and you yell and scream, and then you vote, and that has the power of law without any Constitutional guardrail.
HH: That’s what I was looking for. You’re the classicist. I don’t know what the hard left wants in terms of a governing structure. They can’t come out and say that they want a party, that they want an oligarch like Putin, or that they want the CCP, or they want chaos like Venezuela and Cuba, and increasingly Colombia. They don’t want a dictatorship like North Korea, but they can’t articulate what they want. They just want power and money.
VDH: Yeah, I think they’re, they don’t like a Constitutional republic, because it has laws that restrain what they feel are popular expression or mass hysteria. And you can, they’re almost neo-confederate now, and I don’t mean that just rhetorically. They really do believe in state and local rights transcending federal jurisdiction, to the point where now, some of their heroes are John Brown. We had a Howard professor the other day…
HH: Yes.
VDH: …said you know, you’ve got to burn things down like he did. He was killing people well before Harpers Ferry. They also, and the same thing, we have 600 jurisdictions that are sanctuary cities. Remember when Jan Brewer, she said the federal government is not enforcing federal immigration law, and I’m going to do it in the state of Arizona. And Obama blocked that, sued successfully, and they said no state can defy the federal government, and she was put down on that issue. And of course, she was saying the federal government should enforce its own laws. These people are saying state and local law transcends the federal government, which is trying to enforce law. It’s the same argument that the nullficationists used in South Carolina in 1832. It’s the same thing on the verge, it’s the argument that led to Fort Sumpter, and that’s what Donald Trump is saying on the other side. He’s saying we have federal property in your jurisdictions, and we have federal law that transcends your law on matters of immigration, and we have a right to enforce that law. They are saying not only do you not have a right, we’re going to use popular dissent and condone maybe to the extent of violence in the case of Chicago, we’re going to use local law enforcement to thwart you, or at least not come to your aid. And we’re getting into kind of a Bleeding, I’m afraid we’re getting into a Bleeding Kansas, mid-1850s where we’re going to see people use violence on the assumption that the federal government won’t do anything.
HH: Well, L.A. a Los Angeles immigration officer or sheriff was shot last night during an ICE raid…
VDH: Yeah.
HH: And there was violence in New York this morning. It’s becoming commonplace, almost.
VDH: Yeah, it is.
HH: …for violence to happen against law enforcement. Now yesterday, I had on Bret Baier. He’s written this, it’s a very fine one volume biography of T.R.
VDH: Yes.
HH: And he makes explicit an argument that there’s a lot of T.R. in Trump. My argument’s been for a long time that there’s a lot of Richard Nixon in Trump, and a lot of Trump in Richard Nixon, and they might be bookends of a moment. You just finished a book about Trump.
VDH: Yeah.
HH: What is the analogy? And where is he taking us, because he’s only got three years left? Where’s is going to go? What’s he trying to get done?
VDH: I think his, if you ask him, and I haven’t asked him that, I think he would say I want to restore American preeminence in the world, and I have to do that. We have to do that by reclaiming or rediscovering what gave us prior preeminence, that is the rule of law, a free market economy, a smaller government, a nationalist sense of populism and empowerment of the middle class, sort of the spirit we had during World War II and earlier in the late 19th Century, a can-do, release the animal spirits, let’s show the world why we were once the envy of everyone. And I think he would say we’re not going to regulate ourselves. We’re not going to keep saying we can’t do this, we can’t do this. We can’t sort of, let’s build a railroad in 1866, the transcontinental, and let’s not do high-speed rail in California, that antithesis. That’s what he wants. And you can see why he was attracted to Elon Musk, and why a lot of these Silicon Valley grandees have now flipped, and they think, you know what? AI, cryptocurrency, biological engineering, genetic engineering, all these new technologies, we can really do something for the United States if you’ll, you can regulate us, but let us, don’t pick losers and winners the way Biden reportedly did. So I think he really is sort of a pope presidency. He wants, I don’t know if the right word is, he wouldn’t like it, but manifest destiny. He thinks we are destined to be the most powerful, benevolent power in the world, and we can’t do that unless we get this house in order at home.
HH: Well, that would not be a bad objective. I just don’t know if it’s possible anymore, and I’ll present you with this fact set. Trumbull County, which is my home in Northeastern Ohio…
VDH: Yes.
HH: …was as deep blue as you could get with one exception until Trump came along, which was the 1972 great Silent majority swamp. When the left nominated a leftist, George McGovern from South Dakota, a leftist populist, and 49 states voted for Richard Nixon, who was a center-right national security first realist. I think we’re headed towards a replay of ’72 in 2028, but there won’t be an incumbent on the, I don’t know if it’ll be the Vice-President or Secretary Rubio or Senator Cotton. I don’t know who it’ll be. But do you think we’re heading for that kind of a showdown in 2028 between the people who play their lives between the 20s, and the people on the left side who play over between the 5 and the goal line? I mean, they’re way off the map.
VDH: Yeah, there was a common wisdom that the Democratic Party was going so hard left that after JFK, the only way it could win was somebody had to have a southern accent, and at least feign that he was conservative. McGovern came along and said that’s ridiculous, and I’m going to go hard left. And he essentially ruined the Democratic Party for 20 years. I mean, there was the hiatus of Jimmy Carter, but again, he ran as really not a sincere candidate. He said he was a moderate, and he was a southerner, and then that model didn’t work when people found out who he was. So it was an interim four years. But they really didn’t get back on track until Bill Clinton/Al Gore. They were saying, you know, don’t be afraid of us. And if you look at the ’92 and ’96 Democratic agenda, and its official statement on immigration and unions and crime, juveniles should be treated, violent juveniles should be treated as adults, and foreign policy, it was not that much different, in many aspects, of the MAGA agenda in ’92 and ’96.
HH: So after that cycle, we were back to a normal political cycle with the election of George W. Bush.
VDH: Yes.
HH: Had it not been for Albert Gore contesting an election that ought not to have been contested, had Gore done what Dick Nixon did in 1960 and conceded…
VDH: Yes.
HH: We would have had a much different thing. And the media screwed that election up early by calling Florida early. But then, 9/11 happens.
VDH: Yeah.
HH: And the holiday from history is over, and we’re off fighting the Wahabists. Now, we’re kind of, and then Obama comes in as a reaction to W., and we are, we’re in a strange place, Victor. You’re the historian. Has the country ever been in this place before?
VDH: Well, I was, I entered college in 1971, and I can remember almost daily, this is not 1966-68. There were terrorist attacks almost every day in the news. And I can tell you that when I went to the newly-opened UC-Santa Cruz campus, all I heard was SDS and violence, and almost every…and Vietnam was basically over with as far as we were concerned, but people were swarming downtown. There was violence. I can remember sitting in a classroom in 1973, and people came in and said this class is over, and started, it was the moratorium on the Cambodian bombing, and they threw chairs at people. I can remember going to a class with a distinguished professor of art history, and people ran up and overturned the paintings, the reproductions he had, and said you’re just a tool of the bourgeoise. I had, yeah, we’ve been there before, but what ends these aberrations, I think, or these madnesses, are what you would call, I think that’s what your point was, these landslide victories by common-sense people. Reagan put an end to all of that.
HH: Yes, he did.
VDH: And that 12 years of the Reagan, George Bush didn’t carry on to the same extent, unfortunately. I mean, he said kinder, gentler nation, thousand…but it was still a 12-year continuum. And when that was over, people had the luxury of saying you know what? The left is really dead, and I want to vote for the first African-American president, and Obama is for closing the border. And he really played along that there is no red state, there is no blue state. Let’s unite. There was the Iraq war unpopularity. There was the meltdown in 2008. All of that got him elected. But people did think that he would continue that 12-year normalcy, and he didn’t. First thing he did was basically create this idea that diversity was going to, the black-white binary was over with, and it was a more exclusive victim-victimizer. And 30% of the country, regardless of their class or their wealth, were victims, because they were so-called non-white, and the other 70%, or 68, were victimizers. And we’ve been stuck there with that radical Obama agenda, and not to mention health care and the federal takeover of the federal government, weaponizing the federal government.
HH: While the left continues to go further towards the left.
VDH: Yes.
HH: And so this leads me to St. Augustine. When he wrote The City Of God, it was in response to the barbarian invasion. He said don’t worry, all empires come to an end, and eventually ours is not of this world, etc. That doesn’t really work anymore for the people who are living on social media. You know, Kissinger wrote the book, Leadership. At the end, he said we’re moving from an era where people learn via text to where people learn via image. And that’s a very different world, Victor. Images can be manipulated much more quickly than texts can be manipulated. Do you worry about the actual end of Western Enlightenment civilization along the rule of law norm?
VDH: Yeah, I do, because people, they don’t, they have no sense of history. And they don’t know when somebody is very provocative and says, as a mayor, these people are Nazis or Gestapo, and they have no real idea who the Gestapo was, just that it’s the worst thing in the world. And we’re going to go oppose them, or a professor starts yelling you’ve got to burn things down, or you see this level of emulating how Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck, and then it’s all accelerated with social media, it’s instantaneous. It’s sort of, in the old days, you didn’t really see. I could, you know, 50 years ago, what somebody said in Illinois didn’t affect me. It was reported in the news in three days, but now, it’s instantaneous, and it whips people up. People get very whipped up, and the left is, I guess what the other thing is very quickly is that when Trump was elected, they thought it was going to be like the first Trump term where they could stop him easily. And they had, you know, they had Bill Barr and John Bolton and Jim Mattis, and a lot of people that internally were not on the agenda. And they thought he was mostly a political change. They didn’t understand that Donald Trump ran on a counterrevolution. He was going to change the universities. He was going to change art. He was going to change architecture. He was going to change Defense. He was going to get rid of DEI. He was really going to finish, he was going to be someone who tried to undo the whole progressive project. And they said to themselves, well, we can lose elections, but we cannot lose the corporate board room, the university, the foundations, the media, professional sport. This guy is dangerous. And I think they’ll do anything to stop that. Anything.
HH: Now can they lose it, Victor? You’ve been part of academia for much longer than I have, and I only teach in law schools. You teach undergrads. And people look to you for guidance. I don’t know that the institution recapture from the left is even worth our time as opposed to building new institutions like you’re a chaired professor at Hillsdale as well as Stanford. Where’s the effort better put – new institutions or reclaiming old ones?
VDH: I don’t think they’re contradictory, but there’s another method. A lot of people out in Silicon Valley are almost bragging that they’ve gone to Stanford, to take that example of proximity, or Berkeley, and they’ve seen what it’s like. And then they say well, you know, Mark Zuckerberg dropped out, and Jobs dropped out, and Gates dropped out, and there’s no social disdain anymore, because nobody respects these universities, basically, because they have no standards. 80% at Stanford, like Yale, get A’s, and they dropped the SAT for four or five years. They’re racially obsessed, and I think there’s a big movement for people, and given the internet alternative, you have an alternative of a Hillsdale or Thomas Aquinas, that type of education. You have an effort at the University of Texas, a University of Austin to offer something new or something new within an existing institution. But you also have all these internet courses. And I don’t think there’s any stigma anymore among the upper middle class to say that my son is working for a business, and he went for a year to college, and given that what college turns out, and I’ve seen the graduates, especially at Stanford. And I don’t think they have the same level of learning where I taught at California State University, Fresno, 1984, I started. Those graduates were better educated, more articulate, and could write better than Stanford graduates could today, given the law. So I don’t think there’s anything wrong in the minds of most people just to say my son, my daughter has got a job. And the old idea was general education was necessary to give people the speaking and analytical and written skills to be a functioning citizen, and they would excel at work. But if they’re not going to teach that, and they don’t, then there’s no…I mean, what could save the higher education, Hugh, as you’ve just said, you know, we have an SAT to test people coming in. Why not have one on the way out and see if they’ve, you know, advanced their analytical, vocabulary and mathematical skills, or if they’ve just stayed the same, or if they’ve actually declined, because that’s my suspicion.
HH: You know, Victor, one of my theories is that you’re right about the stigma. It doesn’t exist anymore, but that there will be a counter-stigma, an actual value added to coming out of high school and going into the military, learning discipline, learning to answer Reveille.
VDH: Yes.
HH: Not get in trouble for being stupid, young men, and not so stupid young women, learning a set of skills and then deciding where to go. In other words, we’re all going to live longer, so we might as well take out time getting some skill sets in order at the open end, and not sending kids off to hothouses of weirdness at the age of 18. Here’s where I want to end. For a long time, there’s been you, Jordan Peterson, Larry Arnn, Dennis Prager, a few sort of big, public intellectuals to whom ordinary people could turn for discernment and their books, etc. Who do you think is going to replace you? I mean, I’m unaware, actually. I know who’s at work in journalism. I try and platform young journalists who are serious and smart. But who are the public intellectuals who are going to be filling the void that you and Jordan Peterson and Larry are filling right now?
VDH: That’s hard, but I mean, I look at young people, both centrist and center-right, younger than I am, at least. There’s some people at the Wall Street Journal, three or four of them in the editorial pages I listen to. I just had a, I was on a panel with Coleman Hughes, the young African-American intellectual. We were at a tribute for Thomas Sowell at the Hoover Institution. And he’s very impressive. There’s people 20 years younger than I am, probably like Mollie Hemingway in the conservative movement. There’s a lot of them, and so I, and I see a lot at Stanford. The Stanford Review, I talk to those guys a lot sometimes, and they’re very bright. They’re much brighter than the people at the Stanford Daily, the liberal counterpart. So I’m guardedly optimistic. And one thing that Charlie Kirk did I think we misinterpret or we don’t appreciate, he basically said, Hugh, that the establishment is left-wing and progressive, and is trying to destroy America as we knew it, and there’s a natural rebelliousness in youth. And you can, when you critique the left, you are not old fuddy-duddies. You are not the establishment. They are the establishment. You are the natural rebellious youth. You’re the, you know, the angry young man, so to speak, and you’re right about it. You are trying to dethrone a fossilized, ossified, calcified elite that’s doing your generation harm. And that really resonated with young people, because they didn’t have to say I have to wear a tie, necessarily, I have to be straight looking. You can be any appearance, and they were taking on the establishment. And the establishment, in our time, is left-wing. And that seems simplistic, but nobody on the right had really made the argument like Charlie Kirk.
HH: And it’s succeeding. So last exit question, Victor. There are three big threats – the Chinese Communist Party and its aligned powers Russia, Iran, North Korea. There are the Wahabists, who they may be defeated in Gaza, they may be on the run around the world, but they’ll blow up the World Trade Center or its successor buildings at a moment’s notice if they can. And there’s the domestic left. How do you rank those in your mind as being threats to the republic?
VDH: I would say China is by far the biggest threat. They have 1.4 billion people. They’re going to get near our GDP. They’re going to have 300-plus, 100,000 students in the United States. They have a very effective propaganda. They’ve really done the DEI thing and said we’ve been a persecuted minority, the yellow peril. You put Asians in camp. That was very effective during COVID where they were never held accountable. And they’re very, they’re a nightmare, a totalitarian, Orwellian society which is regimented. It’s very scary, Brave New World. And the Wahabis, I think, are not going to be that much danger. I think Europe is finally waking up to the danger they’re in, and it just seems to me that they’re on the decline, relatively. I am afraid of the left. But I’m hoping that a big blowout in 2028 will do to the left what Reagan did to it, and we’ll get a breather for another four or even eight years.
HH: I’m hopeful about that. Let me close by telling people again Victor had moved to the Daily Signal. What do we call the new podcast, VDH?
VDH: Victor Davis Hanson In His Own Words. That was their, I like, I’m very fond of Rob Bluey, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Signal, so I was doing podcasts, and he invited me over, and I thought it would be a great thing. I think we’ll be right back up to snuff at the end of the week.
HH: Victor Davis Hanson In His Own Words courtesy of the Daily Signal. I look forward to hearing you and your colleagues again on a two or three times a week basis, and I look forward to the next time we have a chance to chat. VDH, thank you as always, a pleasure to talk to you.
VDH: Thank you, Hugh, for having me on.
End of interview.
The post Victor Davis Hanson On The Left’s Assault On Everything appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
