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.