Return to Transcripts main page
Smerconish
The Politics Of Masculinity; Trump's Arlington Cemetery Dispute Escalates. In New Coffee Table Book, Trump Threatens Mark Zuckerberg. Aired 9-10a ET
Aired August 31, 2024 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:37]
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Immigration, the economy, abortion and masculinity. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.
It's Labor Day weekend. Usually this marks the start of the final dash toward Election Day, but of course, we haven't stopped sprinting all summer long. Despite all the effort and expenditures by the candidates and their campaigns, the presidential election is neck and neck. Several polls were released at the end of this week, and they all tell a similar story. A new USA Today/Suffolk poll shows Vice President Harris ahead of former President Trump, nationally, 48, 43.
Big shifts from Hispanic, Black and young voters are helping Harris, but the biggest change came from lower income voters. They supported Donald Trump over Joe Biden by three percentage points back in June, Harris now leading in that demographic, 58 percent to 35 percent casting a 23 point advantage. Then there's a new Wall Street Journal poll, which also shows Harris with a narrow lead over Trump, 48, 47, that's in a head to head matchup.
The national polls are interesting, but of course, presidents get elected in the Electoral College, so all eyes remain on seven battleground states. Bloomberg News and Morning Consult have Harris leading in six of the seven battleground states, a tie with Trump in Arizona. Harris's largest margin is in the state of Wisconsin where she leads by eight.
The Harris campaign clearly has the momentum, but many of these polls, they fall within the margin of error, nevertheless, because of the advantage Republicans enjoy in the Electoral College, polling guru Nate Silver's forecast predicts that it's Donald Trump who has a 52.4 percent chance of winning the Electoral College compared to Harris' 47.3 percent. Back in 2020, Silver's forecast model predicted at about Labor Day weekend that Biden had a 71 percent chance of beating Trump. Then again in 2016 he gave Hillary Clinton essentially the same odds.
The gender divide that's reflected in the candidates themselves is mirrored in polling among young Americans. Writing for "The New York Times" this week, Claire Cain Miller observed the following, quote, "In some ways, this presidential election has become a referendum on gender roles, and the generation with the biggest difference in opinion between male and female voters is Generation Z. On one side are young women, who as a group, are very liberal. They've been politically galvanized by gender bombshells like hashtag MeToo, the overturning of Roe versus Wade and the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris. On the other are young men, some of whom feel that rapidly changing gender roles have left them behind socially and economically, and see former President Donald J. Trump as a champion of traditional manhood."
A recent "New York Times" Siena College Poll finds young voters have the greatest gender divide compared to every other age group. It's 51 points. In other words, men between the ages of 18 and 29 they favor former President Trump over Vice President Harris by 13 points. Women in the same age group are choosing Harris over Trump by 38 points.
Since women started entering the workforce, pursuing higher education in larger numbers in the 70s, young women today are making strides in economic equality, earning more college degrees than men and serving more often as their family's primary breadwinner. Men, on the other hand, are working less. Many are living without a spouse or a partner. A Pew study found less than a fifth of Americans believe that the progress women have made in society came at the expense of men. But 40 percent of men supporting Trump between the ages of 18 and 49 do believe the progress of women came at their expense.
And Trump has been trying to reach out to this demographic doing podcasts and golfing with the Nelk Boys, joking around with Theo Vaughn, appearing on YouTube with Jake and Logan Paul, as well as with streamers like Adin Ross, reaching the millions of young men who follow these social media personalities. As the "New York Times" put it, "These repeated collisions of testosterone fueled orbits are a campaign strategy, not a coincidence."
Look, that our young men today are struggling in comparison to young women, it's borne out in the data raising the question of whether it's time for a targeted intervention. Consider that at the Democratic Party website, there's a list under the heading, who we serve, of 16 different demographic groups, they include African Americans, the faith community, LGBTQ, plus community, rural Americans and women, but not men.
[09:05:19]
Which brings you to today's poll question at smerconnish.com, are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are underperforming in schools and leading unhealthier lives than young women? Go vote.
Joining me now is NYU Business School Professor Scott Galloway, host of the podcast, Prof G. Scott, of course, has been at the forefront of discussions about the plight of young men who feel forgotten.
Great to have you back. That Claire Cain Miller piece in the "New York Times," I thought really interesting, because the men in this category whom she interviewed, she said they're not misogynist, they're more focused on the economy and what they perceive to be their lack of economic opportunity. Will you speak to that issue?
SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS: Great to see you, Michael. Yes, it's interesting. It would be incorrect to assume that it's men want to go back to the past and are some way. This isn't thinly veiled misogyny. As a matter of fact, among Gen Z and Millennial men, they're very supportive of gender equality.
So it's not that they're moving towards the Republican Party, they feel abandoned by the Democratic Party. And that is, if you have a group -- the Democratic Party right now, Michael, is facing the same issues as some of the DEI apparatus at universities, and that is when you are purposely and explicitly advocating for 76 percent of the population, are you advocating for them or are you discriminating against the 24 percent? And that's how I think a lot of young men feel. Quite frankly, they just don't feel seen by the Democratic Party.
To the issue of economics, you reference college, where pretty soon, with these trends, we're going to have two to one female to male college grads. Women in urban areas under the age of 30 are now making more money than men, more single women owned homes than men. And by the way, those are wonderful things, and most men don't resent that, but what they see is a huge apparatus and resources and rhetoric and very inspiring speeches about the importance of advocating for every single group but young men.
SMERCONISH: Yes, it doesn't seem to be a popular position to carry that flag. And I want to show you something. I'll read it aloud, in case you don't have return. There was a headline in the "New York Times," Trump courts the Manoverse. There it is.
Big story. Well done story. And I took a look, Scott, at some of the comments, and this one caught my eye because it was typical. Put that up on the screen, Catherine (ph). So this person said that "headline says it all.
A bunch of bros with fake jobs preaching to a bunch of bros with no jobs being courted by a tiny man who has never held a job that he was qualified for." And I could read you 10 like that, more than 10 like that. And I think that's part of the reason why, you know, there's this mindset out there, like, screw these guys. They don't need assistance. Many of them are young white men.
They've been privileged to begin with. What would you say to those who aren't showing the sympathy for the demographic we're talking about?
GALLOWAY: It's simple. Should a 19 year old who has fewer opportunities, educationally, fewer opportunities, professionally, what happened to wood, metal and auto shop? You have an education system that's highly biased against them. Boys are twice as likely, on a behavior adjusted basis, to be suspended as girls. Think about what we want in education.
We want someone who's organized, who's a pleaser, who sits down, who's not disruptive. You basically describe -- you basically describe a girl. So the question is, you know, do we believe empathy is a zero sum game? And that is, gay marriage didn't hurt heteronormative marriage. Civil rights didn't hurt white people.
And should a 19-year old with fewer economic and romantic opportunities pay the price for the privilege that you and me enjoyed, Michael? That's the key question. Are we -- is it time for them to pay back the wrongs of the past? Or do we, in fact, decide that we cannot have a society that flourishes? Women cannot flourish when men are floundering.
So the notion that somehow this group who is committing suicide, can you imagine any group, Michael that was killing themselves at four times the rate of the control group, and it not being a discussion? How many times did we hear about breaking the glass ceiling and that who's going to tell President Trump that that job he's seeking might be a black job? Those are inspiring righteous words. Did anybody on stage at the Democratic Convention mentioned the very real issues young men are facing, and this is the opportunity. This is a battle.
[09:10:10]
It was supposed to be a battle over a new form of kind of liberating women. We thought that was going to be the defining issue in this campaign, bodily autonomy. It's turning into masculinity and different visions of masculinity, and there's a huge opportunity here, because while Trump has embraced the manosvere (ph), Walz, to the Democrats' credit, is portraying a form of masculinity more around protection and service. And that is a wonderful definition of masculinity, and that is the opportunity for Democrats. First, they have to acknowledge the problem young men have fallen faster than any demographic in America over the last 40 years, and to embrace a more modern form of masculinity and to lean into it.
SMERCONISH: Catherine, will you put back on the screen the DNC portion of the website that I referenced earlier that shows the 16 demographic groups. Because I want to -- I want to ask Scott, should young men be on the list with Latinos, ethnic Americans, Native Americans, rural Americans, seniors, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? I mean, do we need, it's my poll question today, do we need a targeted approach, a policy approach by both parties to address the situation that you've given a platform.
GALLOWAY: I personally think -- quite frankly, I think that list is one thing. I think it's stupid. I think when you say we're advocating for basically everybody but one group, you aren't advocating for those special interest groups, you're discriminating against one. It should be about freedom. It should be about opportunity for the middle class.
It should be about lifting up our young people. I don't think you want I mean specific programs that target young men, I think are just too politically charged. But, for example, the Democrats don't take credit where they should, 70 percent of the jobs created by the Infrastructure Act are going to be for men who don't necessarily have college degrees, but they don't want to talk about it. So I think this is -- I think we need to move away from, quite frankly, the politics of identity to the politics of America. The same is true at universities.
I don't think -- the University of California in 1997 did away with race based affirmative action and went to income based or adversity based affirmative action. I think that's a role for the Democratic Party, instead of calling out specific observable traits and say we're promoting this group and this group and this group, but not this one. Move to, OK, young people are 24 percent less wealthy than they were 40 years ago versus plus 70 year olds are 72 percent wealthier. Young families are struggling. Three million men between the age of 25 and 34 are no longer even seeking employment.
One out of three young men doesn't have a girlfriend. Two out of three young women under the age of 30 do have a girlfriend because they're dating older for more economically and emotionally viable men. So we need programs that lift up all young people, but we need to move away from this identity politics, because it's not about promoting or advocating, it's turning to reverse discrimination.
SMERCONISH: When you do this, and I mean this with the highest praise, I have to go back and watch the tape, because you just hit me with so much good data that I want to write it all down. Put up on the screen the social media reaction, because I might want to lean on Scott for the response before he leaves us. Here it is. Sounds like more coddling of fragile male egos and a form of affirmative action. See, this is typical, Scott, this is just like all those comments in the "New York Times," quote, "Maybe if boys and young men spend more time studying and less time bullying others, gaming or trying to get laid, they'd be better educated."
And you would say what?
GALLOWAY: Replace the term young men with blacks or gays or women and see the reaction you would get from a statement like that. I mean, again, we're not going to have a productive society if young men aren't engaging with school, they're not engaging with work and they're not engaging with women. The whole shooting match is that America is a platform such that people can get together and form loving, deep and meaningful relationships. That is why you have an economy to create a middle class such that young people can build nice lives. And one of the keys to building a productive life is the ability to find a partner.
And the reality is, we don't talk about kind of the core issue here, and it's mating, and that is women make socioeconomically horizontally and up, men horizontally down. And when the pool of horizontal and up keeps shrinking, young people aren't connecting. How many times have you heard people saying that wonderful women and they can't find a man? Sure, they can find a man.
SMERCONISH: Right.
GALLOWAY: They just can't find a man they want. So you know who wants more economically and emotionally viable men, women. Ask any mother --
SMERCONISH: Right.
GALLOWAY: -- who has two girls and one boy. It's time to lift up young people. Empathy is not a zero sum game.
SMERCONISH: You're the best. Thank you for being here as always.
GALLOWAY: Thank you, Michael. Great to see you.
[09:15:00]
SMERCONISH: You too.
I want to know what you think. Go to my website. Now you've had the briefing like, I hope you didn't already vote. I hope you didn't already vote, because I want you to have the benefit of Scott's thinking. And now go to my website at smirconish.com and answer today's question.
I feel like at the outset of the program, when I hit you with it, you're like, where the hell is this coming from? But now you got the whole understanding. Are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are now underperforming in schools and leading on healthier lives than young women?
Up ahead, Donald Trump's latest visit to the Arlington National Cemetery has some arguing over his motives for attending the event, but my next guest disagrees with the criticism. She is the mother in law of Nicole Gee, a marine killed in the line of duty during the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan in 2021. My guest, Christy Shamblin, recently spoke at the RNC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTY SHAMBLIN, MOTHER IN LAW OF MARINE CORPS SGT. NICOLE GEE: He allowed us to grieve. He allowed us to remember our heroes. Donald Trump, knew all of our children's names. For the first time since Nicole's death, I felt I wasn't alone in my grief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:20:37]
SMERCONISH: Monday was the third anniversary of the 13 U.S. military service members who were killed in Afghanistan at Kabul Airport's Abbey Gate. That was August 26, 2021. Three of the 13 are buried at the Arlington National Cemetery. Former President Donald Trump visited the cemetery following a leaf raying ceremony to honor those who lost their lives that day. He did so at the invitation of the families.
A video of the visit posted by the Trump campaign on TikTok showed the former president walking through Arlington and visiting grave sites. It's a violation of federal law to use cemetery footage for campaign purposes.
Prior to Trump's visit to Section 60, that's an area in the cemetery largely reserved for the graves of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, campaign officials were made aware of federal laws which prohibit political campaign or election related activities. They were asked not to take photos or videos for that purpose, the grounds are considered sacred and hallowed. An army spokesperson said an employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was, quote, "abruptly pushed aside." The statement goes on to say, "Consistent with the decorum expected at ANC, this employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption. The incident was reported to the police department, but the employee subsequently decided not to press charges.
Therefore, the Army considers this matter closed." Since Monday, accounts from the scene have varied. Former President Trump has insisted there was no violation of law. Communications Director for the Trump campaign, Steven Cheung, posted on X that the campaign was granted access to have a photographer there. Cheung also disputed claims of a physical altercation, and has said there's video to back this up, yet none has been released thus far.
Former President Trump published a statement on Truth Social from five family members thanking him for making the visit and saying, we are deeply grateful to the President for taking the time to honor our children and for standing alongside us in our grief, offering his unwavering support during such a difficult time.
Joining me now is one of those family members, Christy Shamblin, mother in law of Marine Corps Sergeant Nicole Gee. Gee aged 23 was deployed to Afghanistan, where she served as a female engagement team member to help facilitate evacuation support for Afghan women and children. She was killed in a suicide attack, along with 12 other service members that day leaving behind a husband.
Christy, thank you so much for being here. Please tell me about Nicole.
SHAMBLIN: Thank you for having me. Nicole was a ray of light. She was an encourager. She believed in having a positive mental attitude, and she was so very proud to be serving on with the FET team in Afghanistan. She was very, very proud to serve there, and they all worked so hard to get the most vulnerable out of that country before, you know, certain death. And we're very proud of her, and we want to continue on her legacy and being encouraging and having a positive mental attitude.
SMERCONISH: I'm so sorry for your loss, and I'm trying to understand what exactly went on on Monday. You wanted the former president there. By the way, I think it's a wonderful thing that he was there, reflective and honoring our war dead. But it crossed a line at some point. How do you see it?
SHAMBLIN: Well, first, I want to remind everybody that it's really hard to find a way on August 26 to celebrate and we want to celebrate our heroes. We invited both President Trump and the Biden-Harris administration, and we didn't hear back from the White House. We were happy to welcome President Trump to lay wreaths with all three of our families and our wounded, some of our wounded from that day. And when he came to Section 60, it was at our request to spend time with our loved ones, there was not a press presence there. We privately took pictures among ourselves.
And it was, you know, a more celebratory feeling for that day, because, you know, we want to celebrate our loved ones, and it's very hard to find ways to do that at, you know, at a cemetery, but they were very respectful. We didn't see any altercation. And really, we just want our loved ones to be honored and remembered in a positive way.
[09:25:14]
SMERCONISH: So I hear and respect all of that at the same time, I have to say he should not have used the video that was recorded in TikTok for a campaign purpose. Can we agree on that?
SHAMBLIN: I'm not on TikTok, so I don't know what it is, but yes, you know, there's no political campaigning that was done at Section 60 that day.
SMERCONISH: Right.
SHAMBLIN: It was a respectful time.
SMERCONISH: Yes. And I'm showing --
SHAMBLIN: Yes.
SMERCONISH: I'm showing what was put on TikTok so that the audience can see it, and I recognize you might not be able to see it. We didn't lose one person in 18 months says the narration, and then they took over that disaster, the leaving of Afghanistan. We lost 13 great, great people. I mean, it's got a message of saying, I did right by our soldiers, and he Biden or Biden and Harris did not.
I mean, up until that point, I like, get it. It's great that he's there. Family members want pictures. Terrific. Take the pictures.
Do whatever the family members want. But he shouldn't have put it on TikTok for a political purpose.
SHAMBLIN: Well, you know, I just have to go back to we really just want our kids to be remembered and honored, and it's unfortunate that we can't get that, you know, in other ways. So, we support President Trump, and he supported us.
SMERCONISH: A final question, if I might, do you worry that the issue, the legitimate issue of the way in which we left Afghanistan and the circumstances three years ago at Abbey Gate now sort of diminishes as an issue, because when people think of Afghanistan the withdrawal, it will be the controversy over Arlington, instead of a very appropriate focus on the death of those 13? Final thought on that.
SHAMBLIN: I think our media needs to do a better job of focusing on the Afghanistan withdrawal instead of things like this that aren't really relevant or important. I mean, we were very respectful. I understand that there may have been, you know, a little bit of a misunderstanding, but we'd like to take the focus back to just like you said, let's talk about how we left all the equipment behind. Let's talk about the Americans and the Afghans we left behind. Let's talk about the people we brought over that weren't vetted.
Let's talk about the wounded. And that's what we want to bring focus back to. I appreciate that, because that's exactly what we want, you know, the American people to focus on. We want our Armed Service members to be safer.
We will have another evacuation. And if we don't start to focus on how to fix this, it will end in more casualties, and that's unacceptable.
SMERCONISH: Christy, Godspeed, to you, your family, in particular, your son. Thank you for being here.
SHAMBLIN: Thank you very much.
SMERCONISH: OK. Moving along now. Yes, that's the host's request for some teleprompter advice in terms of where we are going next. There we go.
Still to come, in a fiery letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Mark Zuckerberg says Meta won't be making the same mistakes this election cycle. So, what should Zuckerberg top priority be combating misinformation or, or maintaining neutrality? Make sure you're voting on this week's poll question at smerconish.com, are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are now underperforming in schools and leading on healthier lives than young women? While you're there, sign up for the free and worthy daily newsletter. You'll get to see editorial cartoons like this, which was sketched by Jack Ohman.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:33:31]
SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, you can find me on all the usual social media platforms. I never remember to say this, but follow me on X. I'm there.
Can't we just teach all children to the best of our ability? Dems always want to pick winners and losers. When government education experts and the media elites focus on one group to the detriment of another, it reminds me of Reagan's, I'm from the government and I'm here to help, hashtag stop.
OK. But exactly what you said -- Scott Galloway makes the point that if it were any other group with the same data, if there were any other group that were affected in the way that our young men are being impacted, fill in the blank with another group. They'd be championing that cause. They, meaning both parties.
I mean, how about the idea that, you know, 16 different demographic groups are identified at the DNC Web site. Go to it. Democrats.org, under the headline, "Who We Serve," except one and -- you know, I get it. You're watching TV and you're saying, oh, good, I got, you know, two bald white guys raising the flag to take better care of young men. Well, we are because nobody else is making the pitch. Nobody else is making the case. But the data all tells the same story.
And one of the things that I wanted to say to Scott that I neglected to say. Richard Reeves has written a book called "Of Boys and Men." He has been a guest on this program. And NPR this week talking about this same issue, it's in my newsletter today as a matter of fact, reports that Melinda Gates Foundation has given a billion to causes to help women.
[09:35:04]
And Richard Reeves has a think tank that was also a beneficiary. And he says that may seem strange to some that money that's allocated for women actually ended up going to my think tank. But the point that it makes is that this is a rising tide for everybody. As Scott said, what would be best for our young women is if our young men were doing better.
I'm sorry, I got longwinded. Hit me with another one. Yes, I'm passionate about the subject too.
Smerconish, the women will turnout. The men will stay home and bitch.
It's -- it's interesting the approach of the parties to this. Catherine, do we have Dana White, his introduction of Donald Trump at the -- roll that tape if they would. I want to make a point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA WHITE, PRESIDENT, ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: I'm in the tough guy business and this man is the toughest, most resilient human being that I have ever met in my life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: So, that's -- you know, that's one approach, right? The testosterone approach that's being used by Republicans to motivate the base that I'm talking about. But as I discussed with Scott Galloway, you know, Tim Walz represents a different approach in terms of, here's the coach, they brought up the players on stage and coming at it from more of a -- what would I say, empathetic standpoint?
The point is that both parties are totally dialed in to the demographics that I discussed at the outset of the program today. There is this enormous gender divide among Gen Z, bigger than any other age group, as they look at the election.
Keep your social media coming. I'll read some more during the course of the program.
Still to come, what President Trump -- former President Trump has to say about Mark Zuckerberg in a soon to be released new book. And the social network X was just banned in Brazil after Elon Musk refused a judge's order to suspend certain accounts. We're going to discuss all of this with the co-author of that great book, "The Canceling of the American Mind." Greg Lukianoff is here.
And make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are now underperforming in schools and leading unhealthier lives than young women?
When you're there voting, subscribe to my free and worthy daily newsletter. You'll get editorial cartoons like this from Rob Rogers. We talked about that issue last week on the program.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:41:51]
SMERCONISH: Meta culpa, former President Trump unleashing new attacks against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for Facebook's involvement in the last election cycle. Trump's new book called "Save America" comes out next week and features this image of the former president with Zuckerberg inside the Oval Office.
Trump writes in the caption that Zuckerberg plotted against him during his reelection campaign, and warns Zuckerberg, quote, "If he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison as will others who cheat in the 2024 presidential election."
Zuckerberg now vowing to not repeat the same mistakes his company made during the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. In a letter this week to House Judiciary Committee chair, Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg writes, "In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree. Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions. I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it."
In a separate issue, the Facebook founder also said that his company should have never demoted a "New York Post" story that covered corruption allegations against Hunter Biden that were discovered on a laptop during the 2020 presidential election.
The FBI had warned Meta about a potential Russian disinformation hack against the Bidens. But further reporting later proved the Russians had nothing to do with those allegations.
The GOP also criticized Zuckerberg for donating more than 400 million to help non-profits run local elections in urban, rural, and suburban communities during the pandemic. Republicans claimed that money unfairly benefited Democrats.
Zuckerberg ended his letter with this. "My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another, or to even appear to be playing a role. So, I don't plan on making a similar contribution this cycle."
Joining me now is Greg Lukianoff, a free speech advocate who is president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He is the co-author of a great book called the "Canceling of the American Mind."
Greg, great to see you again. So, in striking a balance between content moderation or maintaining neutrality, he is saying, I'm coming down on the side of neutrality. I imagine you think that's the right way to go.
GREG LUKIANOFF, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION: Oh, absolutely. Because basically, if people see social media companies as censoring speech on a political basis, they're never going to trust them ever. And here's the -- here's the most -- the one frustrating thing about this, and I want to say this directly to Mark Zuckerberg, essentially next time the government tries to coerce you into censorship, please sue.
There was an important case in front of the government -- in front of the Supreme Court this summer called Murthy v. Missouri that was the lawsuit on procedural grounds because they found that the people saying that they were censored because the government pressured social media to censor them didn't have standing. But if Mark Zuckerberg, if Facebook had decided to sue in that case we would have won. And by we, I mean, the American public.
[09:45:01]
SMERCONISH: I see it the same way you see it. So, let me be devil's advocate.
LUKIANOFF: Sure.
SMERCONISH: I mean, I take the position that a marketplace of ideas allows misinformation, disinformation to be combated. When I talked about this on my SiriusXM radio program this week, I had callers who said, wait a minute, if we're in the midst of a pandemic, and we're trying to save lives, and there's bad information out there that could kill people, then surely you would want X, or you will want Facebook, you would want TikTok, whomever to squelch it.
Your response would be what to that?
LUKIANOFF: There's an idea that essentially its hindsight is 20-20. That essentially now we know that a lot of the things that we thought during COVID where were wrong but, you know, we couldn't have known that at the time. But that's rewriting history.
There were so many things that we had every reason to be concerned about at the time that maybe are overall policy, was too restrictive, maybe we could have isolated more to protecting the most vulnerable. It now seems like we did an awful lot of things wrong. And if we allowed to -- if we treated the American public like adults and let them talk about this and understand -- and actually make the point, we don't know everything about this, let's have a discussion about it, we could have actually potentially avoided having the worst of both worlds where we didn't protect the American public very well from COVID, but we also engaged in an absolutely massive restriction on people's liberties.
SMERCONISH: I don't think it's possible to fully and effectively police all this content. And I'm reflective of a book, great book called "Facebook" by Steven Levy. He's an editor at "Wired," was a guest of mine on this program. And maybe this is a dated story, but in Phoenix, Arizona, he goes into a facility where there are people just lined up in cubicles, employees of Facebook, and making 40 second decisions as to what to take down.
When you can't police at all and then you police some of it --
LUKIANOFF: Yes.
SMERCONISH: -- you can't help but put your thumb on the scale of one side or another. That's why I come out on the side of saying, give us neutrality and --
LUKIANOFF: Yes.
SMERCONISH: -- will excuse you the policing responsibility.
LUKIANOFF: Yes, completely agreed. And that's one of the major points we make in "Canceling of the American Mind" is that we've devastated Americans' trust in our collective world of facts partially because if they realized -- even the government is pressuring social media companies to censor arguments that later turned out to -- have a point, they're never going to trust you again.
SMERCONISH: OK. Can the government, at least ask -- not tell but ask. If the government in trying to protect us at the time of a pandemic to use the hypothetical, a very real hypothetical --
LUKIANOFF: Yes.
SMERCONISH: -- if they see information that is going to do harm is it OK that they call Silicon Valley loosely described and say, hey, you're putting out things that are going to kill people?
LUKIANOFF: You know, I'm a civil liberties lawyer. So, basically, you know, one thing that we're -- is you don't just trust the government on a lot of cases. Do I think that they can ask? Absolutely, I think they can. But I think that there should be a law or at least a regulation saying that if the government is contacting social media companies and asking them to censor things that that should be transparent and there should be a record of that.
SMERCONISH: The context in both of these instances, one was the pandemic and Facebook being pressured by the Biden administration. The second was, of course, the Hunter laptop. If the Hunter laptop or loosely described a political scenario should raise its head again, you know, in the next 60 or so days how do you think social media platforms are going to react this time around? I mean, now you've got Musk in control of X. It will be different, right?
LUKIANOFF: I think it would be completely different. I think X would definitely not suppress it. I don't think Facebook would do that again.
I think that people -- social media companies feel badly burned and the American public was pretty outraged about that. So, I think it would be very different this time around. Hopefully.
SMERCONISH: Greg Lukianoff, thank you as always. Enjoy when you're here.
LUKIANOFF: Thank you, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Today's poll question, have you voted yet at Smerconish.com? I have no idea how it turns out. I'm a little concerned about people who voted before I even came on air. Before they heard what Scott Galloway had to say, because I thought he made a very compelling case on this issue.
Are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are now underperforming in schools and leading unhealthier lives than young women? Go vote. When you're there, sign up for my newsletter.
Steve Breen is one of our editorial cartoonists. He drew this for us this week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:54:11]
SMERCONISH: OK. There's the result so far. We've got 31 -- oh, I like this. It's close, 31,769 votes cast. Are policy solutions necessary to address the plight of young men who are now underperforming in schools and leading unhealthier lives than young women? Fifty-two percent say no, but 48 percent say yes.
If nothing else, I think we started this conversation and that's a good thing. And Scott Galloway was a great guest. So, thank you for voting. Keep voting. I'll leave the question up through the rest of the day.
What else has come in in terms of social media response? What do we have, Catherine?
Critical topic and a great discussion on your show -- wow, this seems complimentary. How did this get through?
The data on the plight of young men, suicide rate, et cetera, cannot be ignored. The lack of empathy expressed by many for the troubles -- is very sad.
It is, Greg Nicholls. As Scott said, if it were any other demographic group, I think, the people will be saying, my god, it's a five-alarm fire.
[09:55:05]
We've got to do something. You know, fill in the blank, takeout young men, even worse, you know, young white men, and fill in the blank with any other demographic. And believe me, the Democratic Party on this list from their Web site would have that group as a demographic they'd want to reach.
Quickly, one more. I think, I've got time.
Make education great again. Take out the woke bullshit. Bring back masculinity. Man, I want the 80s back.
You want the 80s back? I want the 70s back. By the way, masculinity has taken on such a negative connotation among some in this discussion. I point out that in the piece that Claire Cain Miller wrote in "The New York Times," which was one of several that caused me to want to talk about it, she interviews a lot of these guys. They're not misogynist.
You know, they're pro-choice. They're for women. They just feel like they've now been left behind and they need some help.
Thank you for watching. Keep voting at Smerconish.com. I'll see you next week.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
