Live from the Saving California event we interview David Horowitz, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, concluding with Michelle Balconi. This event for activists was held on March 17th, 2018 at the Burbank Marriott Convention Center, Los Angeles. We sit down with David Horowitz, Charlie Kirk, and Candace Owens in a private breakout room and Dave interviewed Michelle on stage in front of a large hall of activists.

David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Foundation and author of many books, including his most recent, The Big Agenda. David discusses racism of the Left, how our language has been corrupted, and free speech on universities, or as David calls them, “Marxist indoctrination centers.”

Turning Point USA’s Founder Charlie Kirk and Urban Engagement Director Candace Owens discuss Turning Points efforts on college campuses throughout America. How they are leading the organization to approach the cultural issues that divide students along partisan lines and how they use pop cultural references to deal with timeless issues. We also find out why both Charlie and Candace are so optimistic for 2020.

Michelle Balconi, co-author with Dr. Art Laffer on the “Let’s Talk About” series joins Dave on stage in the main hall to discuss educating kids on the lessons schools no longer provide: economics, democracy, and immigration. Michelle returns to Whiskey Politics to provide our audience with the methods with which to talk about the important lessons not taught, and when the best time is to talk with the kids and grandkids about what they are missing from school.

Subscribe to Hillsdale College’s Imprimis.

Out Music: California Dreaming, SIA

Subscribe to Whiskey Politics in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 13 comments.

  1. Member

    David Horowitz says that the left has a big punch because they call their opponents racists. We on the right call leftists racists, too — so why doesn’t this help us? (And the left is full of real racists.) The reason for the difference is the leftist domination of the media — that’s all there is to it. Leftist memes and attacks get spread all over and into the LIV (Low Information Voter) faction of the country very quickly.

    The secret is not the method of attack but who has the high ground in the media attack machine.

    • #1
    • March 19, 2018 at 9:08 am
    • 3 likes
  2. Contributor

    Larry Koler (View Comment):
    David Horowitz says that the left has a big punch because they call their opponents racists. We on the right call leftists racists, too — so why doesn’t this help us? (And the left is full of real racists.) The reason for the difference is the leftist domination of the media — that’s all there is to it. Leftist memes and attacks get spread all over and into the LIV (Low Information Voter) faction of the country very quickly.

    The secret is not the method of attack but who has the high ground in the media attack machine.

    Media, academia, and culture. It’s the holy triumvirate of the left’s propaganda machine.

    • #2
    • March 19, 2018 at 11:21 am
    • 3 likes
  3. Member

    I’ve listened to podcasts and interviews with each of these people, and I think they are valuable happy warriors. One caveat: attitude toward SSM. This used to be one of my biggest barometers for judging how closely one aligned with my own way of thinking on a broad range of topics. Why is that? Is it because I hay gays and that overrides all else? No – I don’t hate gays and what I think of homosexuality has nothing to do with what I think of civic marriage. Is it because I want to tell others how to live and even who they can love? No – people can live however they wish and love whoever they wish and have sexual relations with whoever they wish, but then I don’t think civic marriage governs any of those things and it certainly doesn’t prevent any of those things outside of marriage. Is it because I want to impose my religious beliefs on people? No – I think the sacrament of marriage is distinct from civic marriage so my religious beliefs are quite independent of my beliefs about civic marriage.

    So what is the connection? 1) How the person approaches the political coalition – there can be disagreement even on this without throwing others under the bus. 2) How the person approaches the relationship between government and individual – there is such a thing as public good apart from natural individual rights; there are natural public interests too – does the person agree? 3) How much the person considers the topic and differing viewpoints before taking a strong or unhelpful position.

    Of course I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on these things (ok, yes I do, but I understand that they won’t and why they won’t). I also don’t expect young people to possess the depth and breadth of experience with ideas to be able to disagree without painting allies as bigoted control freaks bent on imposing their beliefs, no matter how glibly it’s stated. When I hear someone on my side express support for SSM in terms of not wanting to tell people who they can love, it’s similar to me to supporting hate speech or anti discrimination laws on grounds that we shouldn’t be deeming such and such people as not people or as unworthy of dignity. If that is the result of your investigation then you’d better get back to Google, but if it’s just that you really don’t care about the issue then I’d much prefer you say that you really don’t care instead of painting the issue in the terms our opponents would choose to use for maximum infliction of political damage.

    • #3
    • March 19, 2018 at 1:17 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Member

    The state’s interest in homosexual household formation is not the same as heterosexual household formation. They aren’t the same thing. Two names please. The End.

    • #4
    • March 19, 2018 at 1:28 pm
    • 1 like
  5. Contributor

    I must have missed where these discussions pertained to SSM. Not sure why that was mentioned in this thread.

    How about we discuss Mr. Horowitz’s approach to raising the issues about the damage the Left has caused regarding free speech and the general state of conservatism today. Let’s discuss who should have the microphone on these issues as many on the right are uncomfortable talking about it.

    How about we discuss how David wants to pass the baton on to the next generation where folks like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens are braving the college PC culture.

    Let discuss how we can inoculate our children from the Leftist agenda in our schools as Michelle does through her books with Dr. Art Laffer.

    • #5
    • March 19, 2018 at 1:40 pm
    • Like
  6. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    I must have missed where these discussions pertained to SSM. Not sure why that was mentioned in this thread.

    How about we discuss Mr. Horowitz’s approach to raising the issues about the damage the Left has caused regarding free speech and the general state of conservatism today. Let’s discuss who should have the microphone on these issues as many on the right are uncomfortable talking about it.

    How about we discuss how David wants to pass the baton on to the next generation where folks like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens are braving the college PC culture.

    Let discuss how we can inoculate our children from the Leftist agenda in our schools as Michelle does through her books with Dr. Art Laffer.

    It wasn’t part of the discussion (so far….. but I assume it won’t be brought up in the rest either). I explained why I mentioned it in this thread. My enthusiasm for at least one of them as effective happy warriors taking it to the young ‘uns is tempered by the approach taken to the battlefield. That’s all. Not dismissal, not animus, not trying to start a SSM thread or get into the weeds of SSM because ultimately that isn’t the point; I could have probably made the same point using Young Earth Creationism instead. This is about collateral damage to coalition partners in the fight for the culture; this is about inadvertently ceding underlying assumptions of our common opponents.

    • #6
    • March 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
    • 1 like
  7. Member

    People: do not start arguing about SSM on this thread please! That wasn’t my point and I agree with Dave that we should keep the discussion related to braving the college PC culture, who should get the baton/microphone, what they should do with it, and to inoculating our children from the leftist agenda. Really, these are exactly the points I was trying to raise but I should have known better than to use the example I did.

    • #7
    • March 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm
    • 1 like
  8. Contributor

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    People: do not start arguing about SSM on this thread please! That wasn’t my point and I agree with Dave that we should keep the discussion related to braving the college PC culture, who should get the baton/microphone, what they should do with it, and to inoculating our children from the leftist agenda. Really, these are exactly the points I was trying to raise but I should have known better than to use the example I did.

    Thanks Ed.

    • #8
    • March 19, 2018 at 2:02 pm
    • Like
  9. Member

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The state’s interest in homosexual household formation is not the same as heterosexual household formation. They aren’t the same thing. Two names please. The End.

    Thanks Rufus, but I was attempting to make a meta point about how damage can be done to a coalition and even to one’s own position without ever intending or realizing it.

    • #9
    • March 19, 2018 at 2:03 pm
    • 1 like
  10. Coolidge

    So refreshing to hear young people who can actually articulate and speak English. I don’t think I heard the word “like” misused a single time.

    • #10
    • March 19, 2018 at 2:38 pm
    • 1 like
  11. Contributor

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    So what is the connection? 1) How the person approaches the political coalition – there can be disagreement even on this without throwing others under the bus. 2) How the person approaches the relationship between government and individual – there is such a thing as public good apart from natural individual rights; there are natural public interests too – does the person agree? 3) How much the person considers the topic and differing viewpoints before taking a strong or unhelpful position.

    Ed,

    I think these are extremely important points. If we have one aim for this show, it’s to bridge the gap by way of providing information many won’t hear through the media. It’s incredible when you sit down with someone, as I did the other night at a party, and explain things factually, not emotionally and have a Progressive tell you “wow… I didn’t know that. I want to learn more”.

    I assume by your point you’re referring to the acrimony within conservative circles. There’s probably more intraparty fighting on the right than we see on the Left (JMO). This may be a good thing as we at least hash things out on the right.

    We see it here on Ricochet (especially pertaining to the President) and while it bores me, it cannot be ignored (as much as I try to pretend it’s not there). But I find arguing these issues akin to persuading your family member on Facebook to change her political opinion; It won’t happen. So, I’ve stopped trying to persuade others. I present facts and allow those we have on the show to do likewise.

    My job isn’t to make the horse drink from the firehose of information they may not yet know, it’s to allow to the horse to realize, on its own, it’s thirsty.

    • #11
    • March 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    I assume by your point you’re referring to the acrimony within conservative circles. There’s probably more intraparty fighting on the right than we see on the Left (JMO). This may be a good thing as we at least we hash things out on the right.

    I don’t mean intramural acrimony. That’ll happen. When it does it’s still important try to keep your partner’s back even if you were just punching each other in the face moments before. When turned to the world we should support each other as much as we can.

    However, I was referring to unemotional, possibly glib, probably unintentional undermining of partners. I have a particular person in mind from a particular interview I saw recently, but I don’t want to turn people’s opinions or denigrate more than warranted so I’m trying to stay general so as not to derail the thread and also so as to not hurt the good work that all of these people are doing. I only ask that in this good work they be more mindful of how they present arguments. If you really care about an issue and disagree with your partners I bet there’s a way to do it without undermining that partner or other principles. If you don’t really care or haven’t really taken the time to understand the layout of other viewpoints, then be careful because you can end up saying some terrible things about your partners when chances are they aren’t terrible people to be written off. Honesty and persuasion don’t require tearing down partners any more than it prevents reasonable disagreement.

    • #12
    • March 19, 2018 at 3:23 pm
    • 1 like
  13. Member

    Amazing to see how everything comes full circle in this series of short videos; David Horowitz, once a leftist radical, is a magnificent champion of educating us on how the left turned classrooms into indoctrination camps, and helps young people to thrive in the environment of Truth. Then we see the bright shining faces of Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, whose charisma and hard work may lead a generation out of darkness. Finally, the incredibly chipper Michelle Balconi, who, with Dr. Art Laffer, energetically promotes the actual teaching of economics and democracy to grades school kids, giving them the tools to defend themselves.

    It’s enough to make a person downright optimistic.

     

    • #13
    • March 23, 2018 at 8:42 am
    • Like