Delivered on March 5, 2007
BECKY NORTON DUNLOP: The Heritage Foundation has a
very fine reputation for excellent research and writing on policy
issues that are facing our nation and our world, focusing on
Capitol Hill. One of the things that we have talked about in some
of our work and with some of our speakers is the challenge that we
face in our culture.
So we've decided to do something about that in this year of
2007, and what we've decided to do about it in the External
Relations Department is to bring some people to our podium who have
worked in the entertainment world: people who have a
profession that is recognized and well received but come from a
perspective on the culture that doesn't get widespread
coverage, let's say, in today's mainstream media.
We aim to change that. We think some of the people and some
of the productions that we're going to be bringing to Heritage in
2007 are ones that more and more people should see and hear and
messages from people that need to be told to the mainstream, and
you're going to hear them first here at The Heritage
Evan Sayet has written and/or produced in virtually every medium
there is. He started out as a stand-up comic. Very few are
successful, but Evan has been successful at that. He was
quickly spotted by David Letterman and offered a spot on a
special episode featuring young talent. He then moved into writing,
and he was an integral part of the team that made the "Arsenio Hall
Show" the first late-night program in 30 years to give the "Tonight
Show" a run for its money.
Then he moved to a very interesting assignment called
"Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher. After that, Evan wrote and
produced the highest-rated special in the Learning Channel's
history, "The 70's: From Bellbottoms to Boogie Shoes." He perfected
the book for a musical comedy, wrote a screenplay optioned by Penny
Marshall, and even tried his hand at game shows as the original
writer of the cult classic, "Win Ben Stein's Money."
The latest twist in Evan's career came during the recent
presidential elections when he turned his attention and skills
toward convincing others of the greatness of America and the need
to reelect President Bush and to stay the course in the Middle
East. In a short time, Evan was made the communications
director for Los Angeles for President Bush. He wrote a number of
articles about this for major conservative outlets and later was
asked to offer weekly commentary on KMJ Radio. He also began
delivering the lecture that he's going to be delivering to us
He now is among Los Angeles's most in-demand speakers, a
political pundit recognized by Dennis Prager as brilliant for his
take on the unique power of the Judeo-Christian culture and singled
out by Rush Limbaugh for his explanation of why Liberals lie. Evan
is signed with one of the country's top speakers bureaus and has
recently been booked at the highly prestigious Lincoln Club, whose
monthly roster of speakers has included people such as Ken Starr,
former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, and the Consul General of
At around that same time, Evan returned to his first love,
stand-up comedy, only now with a decidedly conservative twist. He
has been the headliner of a night of conservative comedy called
"Right to Laugh" and is now planning a series of one-nighters
around the country. He recently appeared at the Conservative
Political Action Conference and was well received by his
audience on a night when there were many luminaries on the stage.
He will soon produce his first CD, "Funny, You Don't Look
Becky Norton Dunlop is Vice
President for External Relations at The Heritage
EVAN SAYET: I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a
liberal New York Jew; you don't get much more liberal than
that--although it was lower-case "l," not what's considered Liberal
today. I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about
politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil.
I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps
crystallize my thinking that brought me to become a
conservative. I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old
friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate
my wife." You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time
you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've
been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're
just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife.
So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot
his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant.
You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help
your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it." At that
moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.
That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my
friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and
imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself
and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on
9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and
I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they
said, "Nah, she deserves it."
At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America. And
that began me on what's now a five-plus-year quest to try to
understand the mindset. How could you possibly live in the freest
nation in the history of the world and see only oppression? How
could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and
see us as the ultimate in imperialism? How could you live in
the least bigoted nation in human history and, as Joe Biden said,
"see racism lurking in every dark shadow"?
Over the next five years, what I came to think through, what I
came to learn, what I came to find in conversations and studying,
listening, and reading became this talk and very soon will be
the book Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals
I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the
Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to
propose to you that it's not "just about" every issue; it's quite
literally every issue. And it's not just wrong; it's as wrong as
wrong can be; it's 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically
opposed to that which is good, right, and successful.
What I discovered is that this is not an accident. This is part
of a philosophy that now dominates the whole of Western Europe and
the Democratic Party today. I, like some others, call it Modern
Liberalism. The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over
good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over
those that lead to success. Give the Modern Liberal the choice
between Saddam Hussein and the United States, and he will not only
side with Saddam Hussein; he will slander America and Americans in
order to do so. Give him the choice between the vicious mass
murderer corrupt terrorist dictator Yasser Arafat and the tiny and
wonderful democracy of Israel, and he will plagiarize maps,
forge documents, engage in blood libels--as did our former
President Jimmy Carter-- to side with the terrorist organizations
and to attack the tiny democracy of Israel.
It's not just foreign policy; it's every policy. Given the
choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage
promiscuity--and believe me, I know this from my hometown of
Hollywood--they will use their movies, their TV shows, their songs,
even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it's cool:
like the movie American Pie, in which you are a loser unless
you've had sex with your best friend's mother while you're still a
child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a
pro-choice group, will hold a fund-raiser called "'F' Abstinence."
(And it's not just "F." It's the entire word, because promoting
vulgarity is part of their agenda.)
So the question becomes: Why? How do they think they're making a
better world? The first thing that comes into your mind when trying
to understand, as I've so desperately tried to understand, is
that if they side always with evil, then they must be evil. But we
have a problem with that, don't we? We all know too many people who
fit this category but who aren't evil: many of my lifelong friends,
the people I grew up with, relatives, close relatives.
If they're not evil, then the next place your mind goes is that
they must just be incredibly stupid. They don't mean to always side
with evil, the failed and wrong; they just don't know what they're
doing. But we have a problem with this as well. You can't say Bill
Maher (my old boss) is a stupid man. You can't say Ward Churchill
is a stupid man. You can't say all these academics are stupid
people. Frankly, if it were just stupidity, they'd be right more
often. What's the expression? "Even a broken clock is right twice a
day," or "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again."
But if they're not stupid and they're not evil, what's their
plan? How do they think they're making a better world by siding
with Saddam Hussein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open, by
seeking the destruction of a democracy of Jews? I don't know
if you've seen the list going around the Internet of all the
Nobel Prize-winning scientists from this tiny state of Israel. How
do they think they're making a better world by promoting to
children behaviors that are inappropriate and cause diseases and
unwanted pregnancies and ruin people's lives? How do they think
they're making a better world?
What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on
50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only
one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up
with--none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of
the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in
creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So
they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved
to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and
injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt
to be right.
If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree
about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we
didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there
would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime;
without crime, there would be no injustice. It's a utopian vision,
and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of
all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and
decency--all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be
better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right,
by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving
When this first started to dawn on me, I would question my
Liberal friends--and believe me, there were plenty of them in
Hollywood. The thing about Hollywood is that it is overwhelmingly
Liberal: upper-case "L," not lower-case "l." There are a lot more
of us conservatives than you would suspect, but they are afraid.
It's hard to come out because what's so Orwellian--and virtually
everything about this philosophy is Orwellian--is that the
Liberals are as illiberal as you can imagine. As much as they
scream "McCarthyism," there is a "graylist" there that sees people
not get hired because they don't toe the Leftist line.
What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate
rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be
right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right and to
prove that wrong isn't wrong. You see this in John Lennon's song
"Imagine": "Imagine there's no countries." Not imagine great
countries, not imagine defeat the Nazis, but imagine no religions,
and the key line is imagine a time when anything and everything
that mankind values is devalued to the point where there's nothing
left to kill or die for.
Obviously, this is not going to happen overnight. There are
still going to be religions, but they are going to do their best to
denigrate them. There are still going to be countries, but they
will do what they can to give our national sovereignty to one-world
bodies. In the meantime, everything that they teach in our schools,
everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the
TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick and how they spin
them have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., and
that is: Does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil?
Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it
tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones
that lead to failure so that there is nothing left to believe
You might recognize this as the paradigm and the purpose of one
of the most successful Liberal motion pictures of all time,
Fahrenheit 9/11. There's nobody who believes Michael Moore's
Fahrenheit 9/11 was an honest attempt to portray the real
events of that horrific day and its aftermath. Everybody knows
that Michael Moore is a Leftist and that it was a propaganda film
in which the facts were cherry-picked, the evidence manipulated,
the narrative near-lunatic, all for one purpose. The
question that we were debating at the time was, "Should we go
to war against the Iraqi government, against Saddam Hussein?" So he
used all the tricks and manipulations and lies that he could to
show that America isn't that good, that America isn't worth
fighting for, that Saddam Hussein isn't that evil and not worth
fighting against, for the purpose of undermining our efforts to go
Again, there is quite literally nothing in Hollywood, in
the newspapers, in our schools that does not have this as its sole
criterion. For example, there is no journalistic standard by
which the misdeeds of a handful of night guards at an obscure
prison for terrorists--misdeeds in which nobody was killed and
nobody was seriously hurt--ought to be a front-page story in The
New York Times. Not for a single day. Yet, for 44 straight
days, this non-story was a front-page story in The New York
Times. Why? Because while it met no journalistic standard, it
met the one and only Modern Liberal standard: "You think America's
good? We found something that's going to make you not believe that
any longer. You think that the Islamic fascists are bad? No, no,
no, this is why they do it. No wonder they fly airplanes into our
And that's just one of so many other examples. There was no
journalistic standard by which Newsweek printed the
story of Korans being flushed down the toilet. Not only was it a
bogus story, it never happened--it was an impossible story.
Think about it: Can you flush a book down the toilet? Even a
five-year-old would know that you can't flush a book down the
toilet; you can't fit a square peg into a round hole. So why did
Newsweek run a story that was not only bogus, but that
failed to meet even the most obvious logic? Because nothing matters
to them. There is no standard, because a standard would require
them to say something is better than something else, which goes
against this entire philosophy. It met the one and only criterion
of truth to Newsweek, which was that it attacked America and
justified the Islamic fascist terrorist.
The same thing is true in the art world. There is no artistic
standard, no aesthetic criterion by which-- forgive me--a jar of
urine with a cross in it is beautiful. There is no aesthetic
criterion by which the curators of the museum said, "Take down
the Monet and put up the urine," but it met the one and only
standard of art that exists to the Modern Liberal.
Similarly, the movies last year met no criterion of storytelling
and no criterion of cinematography. The five nominees for Best
Picture met one criterion. Brokeback Mountain said
heterosexual marriage isn't that important; go be a homosexual if
you choose. Munich said there is no difference between the
terrorists and the people who stop them from murdering again.
And if you look at the other pictures as well, ultimately with
Crash winning, Crash said America is this evil,
horrible nation where every moment of every day is filled with
bigotry and racism.
There truly is no standard, no criterion for truth, beauty,
justice, or anything else amongst the Modern Liberals, the
dominant force in today's Democratic Party: not all Democrats,
but those who will mindlessly accept without question, without
doubt, that of course we went into Iraq to steal their oil because
that's what America does; no need to even consider any other
possibility. Not everyone who voted for John Kerry and who fits
that description is aware of the elite's blueprint for utopia, and
I don't think some of them would support it if they were.
What the elite have succeeded in doing through the institutions
we've allowed them to control--and if we're going to save America,
we must take back the schools, the universities, the media, the
entertainment industry--is indoctrinating, starting with the
very young and going all the way up through college and beyond,
starting the first time they turn on "Sesame Street" and
"Buster Bunny," going up through the middle years when they're
told, "Hey, little boy, if you have a queer eye, you're going to be
a cool guy," or, "Hey, little girl, it doesn't matter how cool you
are; if you grow up to be a heterosexual married woman, you're
going to be a desperate housewife."
So many of the other shows that are on the air show family and
marriage and all the things that are traditional and that we
recognize as good--shows like "The War at Home" and "Rules of
Engagement"--as if it's another battle. They wouldn't allow "Make
Room for Daddy" and shows like those because they were not
realistic, so instead we now have the Bundys, where the mother and
father hate each other and are looking to get as much as they can
from each other, and this whole mindset. And it continues on
through Ward Churchill's ethnic studies class.
What happens is, they are indoctrinated into what I call a "cult
of indiscriminateness." The way the elite does this is by teaching
our children, starting with the very young, that rational and
moral thought is an act of bigotry; that no matter how
sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how
earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined
you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be
so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your
religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your
great-great-great-great-great grandfather's birth; that no
matter what your conclusion, it is useless. It is nothing other
than the reflection of your bigotries, and the only way to
eliminate bigotry is to eliminate rational thought.
There's a brilliant book out there called The Closing of
the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was
trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so
stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the
recognition, that they'd been raised to believe that
indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite
is the evil of having discriminated. I paraphrase this in my
own works: "In order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern
Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate."
I'll give you an example. At the airports, in order not to
discriminate, we have to intentionally make ourselves stupid. We
have to pretend we don't know things we do know, and we have to
pretend that the next person who is likely to blow up an airplane
is as much the 87-year-old Swedish great-great-grandmother as
those four 27-year-old imams newly arrived from Syria screaming
"Allahu Akbar!" just before they board the plane. In order to
eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become
The problem is, of course, that the ability to
discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the
available options--as in "she's a discriminating shopper"--is the
essence of rational thought; thus, the whole of Western Europe and
today's Democratic Party, dominated as it is by this
philosophy, rejects rational thought as a hate crime.
So what you're left with after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in the
Leftist indoctrination centers that our schools have become are
citizens of voting age who are utterly unwilling and incapable of
critically judging the merits of the positions they hold and have
held unquestioned since they were five years old and first entered
the Leftist indoctrination process.
There was a book that came out at just about the same time as
Professor Bloom's that in some ways even better describes and
explains the mindset of the Modern Liberal. It was Robert Fulghum's
All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, and it
reads like the bible of Modern Liberalism and the playbook of
Democratic Party policy.
The sentence fragment "Don't hit," which is one of the lessons
that Fulghum refers to, has morphed into an entire sentence now
that they're adults: "War is not the answer." But they don't really
need to know anything, because even though they know about Neville
Chamberlain and what happens if you appease evil, they don't really
need to know it because knowing it or not knowing it would not have
changed the position they have now and have held unquestioned since
they were five.
When I was five years old, I used to go around the neighborhood
trick-or-treating with my friends on Halloween, and we'd have in
one hand a bag for candy and in the other hand a little box with a
slit on top for nickels and dimes and pennies for UNICEF, because
at five years old, the United Nations is a terrific thing: "Don't
hit, talk." Another lesson from Robert Fulghum is "Share
everything." Well, here, we'll share power; we'll share our wealth;
we'll pay for the United Nations. Let's talk things out. What a
lovely, wonderful thing.
Then you turn 10, 15, 20, and you learn some things about the
United Nations that change your opinion. You learn about the
corruption. You learn about the anti-Semitism, that they ran away
from the genocide in Rwanda, have done nothing about the Sudanese
genocide--in fact, made the Sudanese members of the Human Rights
Commission while they were committing this genocide! You and I
change our position because these are things we really need to
know, yet the Modern Liberal will maintain their five-year-old's
position, their belief that the United Nations is this great,
wonderful thing, and completely ignore everything they've learned
There was a song that came out at about this time called
"Goodbye Stranger" by a group called Supertramp--because, you
know, being a "tramp" is super! In it, this guy and this girl shack
up together for a couple weeks, and apparently things are pretty
wonderful until she says something like, "Honey, we've run out of
food. Why don't you go to the supermarket, pick up some things, and
then we can do this for another week or two?" He says, "I should go
shopping? No, no, that's not my paradise. I'm leaving." And as he's
walking out the door, he says to her, "Now, I believe that what you
say is the undisputed truth, but I have to see things my own
way just to keep me in my youth."
That is so much the mindset of the Modern Liberals. It's
not that they are not aware of all the things that we're aware of;
it's that they need to reject them in order to remain in this
five-year-old's utopia that they've been told is the only hope for
mankind: a mindless indiscriminateness.
So what you're left with is not really adults, but citizens of
voting age who cannot judge their own positions but are virulently
antagonistic to any position other than their own. Why?
Because when you've been brought up to believe that
indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, any position other
than their own must have been arrived at through the employment of
discrimination. This is why Bush is Hitler; this is why Reagan is
Hitler; this is why Giuliani is Hitler.
How is Rudolph Giuliani like Hitler to a thinking person? In one
way: Hitler discriminated against the Jews; Giuliani discriminated
against the crack-addicted prostitutes mugging people in Times
Square. Hitler discriminated against the Catholics; Giuliani
discriminated against the criminal overlords. Hitler
discriminated against the gypsies; Giuliani discriminated against
the terrorists on 9/11 and beyond. In other words, any form
of discrimination is wrong.
The Modern Liberals know that theirs is a position arrived
at through the moral imperative of indiscriminateness; therefore,
any position other than their own must have been arrived at through
the employment of discrimination. So this makes you not just wrong
on your issues and your stances. They don't even think about your
issues and your stances. They don't have to. Even if they were
willing to, even if they were able to, they don't need to.
Would you sit and contemplate Hitler's Social Security policy?
No, you would fight Hitler.
So what you're left with is, after 10, 12, 14, 20 years in these
indoctrination centers--and it's not a coincidence that the longer
you stay in the indoctrination process, the more morally
inverted you become, so that to become head of the Ethnic
Studies Department, you have to argue that the Islamic fascist
terrorists are the good guys and the victims of 9/11 were all
little Eichmanns--is people who quite literally cannot
differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong, better and
But indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to
indiscriminateness of policy. Indiscriminateness of thought
invariably leads the Modern Liberal to side with evil over good,
wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those
that lead to success. Why? Because in a world where you are
indiscriminate, where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse
than any other, your expectation is that all behavior should lead
to equally good outcomes. When, in the real world, different
behaviors lead to different outcomes, you and I know why-- because
we think. We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity
tend to fail at a greater rate than communities that promote
teenage abstinence: Teenage promiscuity and teenage abstinence
are not the same behaviors. Teenage abstinence is a better
Forget the moral component for a moment; let's just talk
practicalities. If your boy's out messing around, he's not home
reading a book. If your daughter's down at the abortion mill again,
she's not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son's in a
hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, he's not putting together his
You and I recognize why communities that promote teenage
abstinence do better than those that promote teenage promiscuity in
their music, in their movies, in the schools. But to the Modern
Liberal who cannot make that judgment--must not make that
judgment--that would be discriminating. They have no explanation.
Therefore, the only explanation for success has to be that
somehow success has cheated. Success, simply by its existence, is
proof positive to the Modern Liberal of some kind of chicanery
and likely bigotry. Failure, simply by its existence--no other
evidence needed, just the fact that it has failed--is enough proof
to them that failure has been victimized.
So the mindless foot soldier, which is what I call the
non-elite, will support the elite's blueprint for utopia, will side
with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead
to failure over those that lead to success, out of a sense of
justice. As I said at the beginning, they're not evil. It's just a
mindless acceptance without any true Socratic desire to talk about
the real consequences. It's meaningless to them, and it's why John
Lennon said utopia was all the people living for today.
By the way, it's not a coincidence that those who live for today
now have so much debt. What is debt? It's the failure to repay a
promise from yesterday. And they vote themselves nothing but more
and more entitlements, which is what? Stuff for me. I'll worry
about who pays for it later.
The same is true of good and evil. Since nothing can deemed
good, nothing can be deemed evil. That which society does recognize
as good must be the beneficiary of some sort of prejudice. That
which society recognizes as evil must be the victim of that
prejudice. So, again, the mindless foot soldier will invariably
side with whatever policy, mindlessly accept whatever policy seeks
to tear down what is good--America, Israel, Wal-Mart--and elevate
what is evil until everything meets in the middle and there is
nothing left to fight about.
Take an issue in the news and think like a Modern Liberal,
and you will see how, once you've been indoctrinated into this
mindset, there is no other choice. Remember, I said it was
inevitable. Once you belong to this cult of indiscriminateness,
there is no other conclusion you can come to than that good is evil
and that evil is the victim of good.
We all know it's official policy at the Leftist media outlets to
never call Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Harakat
ul-Mujahidin, or any of the other Islamic fascist terrorist
groups around the world "terrorists," and you know why. In fact,
it's even in official memos to reporters ordering them not to use
the appropriate word. That reason is that "one man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter. Who are we to employ critical,
But, as a very minimum standard, can't we at least agree that in
order to be called a "freedom fighter," you have to be fighting for
freedom? We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he's told
us. It's not freedom; it's an oppressive theocracy in which women
are covered from head to toe and beaten if their ankles become
exposed, and unless we all change to his religion, we are
considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys to be decapitated.
People like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore will call Osama bin
Laden a freedom fighter because being indiscriminate quite
literally leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom
and having your head hacked off. That's how sick this mentality
So, if The New York Times and CNN and
Newsweek and the rest of the leftist media outlets are
right and there is no objective difference between the
terrorist and the freedom fighter, why is it that you and I
teach our children that George Washington is a hero and Yasser
Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains? You and I know why
because we think.
George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead
his troops into battle: battles fought nobly against other
uniformed warriors for the purpose of creating the freest nation in
the history of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff.
Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, stole his people's money, sent
14-year-olds out to fight his battles: battles fought against kids
and women and civilians in pizza parlors and Passover ceremonies,
all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty
But to the folks at The New York Times, there is no
objective difference between the terrorist and the freedom fighter.
So why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero?
The only possible explanation is that he is a white Christian of
European descent. If there is no difference between the
behaviors of the freedom fighters and the terrorists, then why do
we teach that Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains?
There can be no other reason than they are darker-skinned
Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.
So when push comes to shove and after 18 United Nations
resolutions and 10 years of having our airplanes shot at in direct
violation of our very clear agreements, after Saddam Hussein had
invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia and bombed
Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the North and was
committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the South, we
finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people. You
and I know why because we think: because we make critical,
rational, moral judgments.
But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot
discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation
for us going to war is some nefarious cause: because we're evil and
Saddam Hussein, therefore, is a victim. So they will rush there, as
we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and
his torture chambers because they won't judge rape rooms and
torture chambers, for that requires critical and moral
And if you listened to the chants of the mindless minions as
they marched down the streets in their anti-America rallies, which
the forged document users and the Leftist press euphemistically
called "anti-war rallies," you could hear their chant: "One, two,
three, four, we don't want your racist war." What race, exactly,
comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know. It's
not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement. Didn't we
just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we
bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe?
What is this based on? It's based on the reality that once you
subscribe to indiscriminateness, anything other than
indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.
Questions and Answers
QUESTION: You repeatedly used the term "Modern Liberal."
When you go back in time, how do you view other definitions of
"liberal" religiously, as when liberals were called "bleeding
hearts" related to Jesus Christ, and in classical intellectual
thought? I know a lot of Libertarians today like to call themselves
liberal in the classical sense. How do you view Modern Liberalism
with past liberalism?
MR. SAYET: Normally I would refer to the difference
between upper-case "L" and lower-case "l." I refer to these people
as Modern Liberals because it did come out of what we thought was
the liberal tradition but went in a new direction. What they
are now is very different from what they were. In fact, Modern
Liberalism--upper-case "L" - is about as illiberal a philosophy as
we've had in America, and though it's not quite yet gotten as
violent as some others have, I fear that it's on its way.
As you go back through time, there was always the sense that we
were trying to work toward something; there was a belief that
there was something better than what came before. This Modern
Liberalism is nihilism in a lot of ways. They will constantly
argue, "question authority, question your government, don't
trust your neighbors, don't trust Wal-Mart, everybody's out to get
you," but they don't really replace it with anything. So there is
nothing to aim for that you can make a judgment whether that's
truly a good thing to do.
I think that, more than anything else, Modern Liberalism is
characterized by its destructive nature. It tears down the
authority of people in the schools, the authority of the old
textbooks, the heroism of the people we would look up to and teach
our children to look up to, but replaces it with nothing.
QUESTION: Do you have any more commentary on the
past liberals? Do you respect liberals in the past?
MR. SAYET: There was always a liberal tradition in
America, starting with the Founding Fathers and prior to them. It's
very, very, very rare that the majority would cede so many
rights and recognize that the rights came to everybody and that
they didn't come from the powers here but came from a greater power
than ourselves. The power that minorities have in America and have
always had in America-- and I include myself as a Jew amongst the
minorities--is unprecedented in human history, and that was
true liberalism: the fact that it wasn't forced upon people.
The things that are happening now, like losing free speech in
our schools, are the opposite of what liberalism was. Some of the
same values that were liberal back in the '60s are conservative
now. I'll give as an example a color-blind society. That remains a
liberal concept; unfortunately, it's not liberal from a Modern
Liberal--upper-case "L"--point of view.
QUESTION: Owen Graham, foreign policy intern here at
Heritage. I think you've come to the nexus of what we as
conservatives confront, because it really is a revolution. As Bloom
puts it, it's changing everything from a right society to the
privileging of differences and the lack of being capable of
making decisions based on principles. The only principle
is that you can't discriminate against anything.
MR. SAYET: Indiscriminateness of thought doesn't just
lead to sometimes being right; it actually is a philosophy
that has an inevitable conclusion. Bloom talks about "seeking the
good," and that's what we try to do. It doesn't mean we're always
right, doesn't mean we always get there, doesn't mean we don't
stumble along the way; but without a recognition of good, then how
do you progress toward good?
Which puts the lie to the concept that Modern Liberalism is
progressive in any fashion. If they have nothing to progress
toward, if there is no good, then they are forcing every single
generation not only to reinvent the wheel, but to fight every
battle we've ever fought to get to this great nation, this great
time that we're in.
QUESTION: I thank you, and I hope that you are counseling
some of the conservative candidates to bring this up, because it
has permeated everything.
MR. SAYET: It's quite literally everything. That's why I
didn't hesitate at the beginning to say it is the only standard in
Hollywood, the only standard for journalism, the only standard for
art, the only standard for justice.
One of the big canards of Modern Liberalism is this notion of
diversity, as if diversity is a virtue. Diversity is not a virtue;
diversity is meaningless. Diversity just means "different." Without
the critical moral judgment to say, "Yes, it's different and
good," you're not only not supporting good, but you are
invariably supporting evil.
Our melting pot melted out some of the failed behaviors, some of
the lesser behaviors. That's how we became such a terrific nation:
by taking the best and leaving aside the rest. That makes the bad
behaviors rare in our society, so to be diverse you have to promote
that which is rare. Common sense and conventional wisdom are both
rejected for no other reason than that they're common and
conventional. So you find, again, the Modern Liberal
championing always that which is the worst.
QUESTION: Alan Nichols from Washington
Diplomat magazine. If Hillary Clinton were sitting here
listening to you, trying to be open to you--assuming she's
capable--she would say, "You have a perspective, but I also am
working toward the good." You say liberals don't work toward the
good, but Hillary would say, "I want universal health care because
I believe it is best for America's citizens."
MR. SAYET: Absolutely. I really did try to stress at the
beginning that I don't necessarily consider them evil. I absolutely
believe that they believe that they are working toward "the good."
The problem is that you've eliminated critical, rational judgment;
you've eliminated the ability to tell the difference between what
works and what doesn't work; you're coming from the mindset of a
When I was five years old, the New York World's Fair closed up
in my neighborhood, down the street from me, and I insisted that my
father buy the monorail that went around the park because I
wanted to put it up alongside the Long Island Expressway
and ease congestion and pollution because I was a liberal kid. He
explained to me in grown-up fashion that we couldn't afford it and,
technically, there were problems like getting the rights of way,
creating a bureaucracy, etc.
When you have a conversation with a Modern Liberal about health
care, there's no doubt that their goal is as good as mine was:
curing air pollution or curing everybody's health problems.
But if you don't have the grown-up sense to be able to discuss how,
what's the reality, what's the truth, you can't have a conversation
where you make the world a better place. It's all fantasy at that
point. Again, you're dealing with a five-year-old, so of course she
wants to make the world a better place. Very, very few of us
It's a matter of having given up the ability to
discriminate: (a) they can't bring it about because it's a
childish conversation; and (b) when you have to make the decisions
about who gets certain things-- for example, health care, welfare,
or illegal aliens-- certain decisions have to be made about who
qualifies for it, and when you're just going through
indiscriminately giving all these benefits, then you're
actually going to be assisting that which is most failed because
they're the ones who are going to be most in need.
QUESTION: Global warming and Al Gore?
MR. SAYET: I am convinced that global warming is not
a position they have arrived at through an honest and sincere look
at the scientific data and the recognition that these models--look,
we don't even trust models of weather three days down the road on
the nightly news, but we're going to trust this one for 50 years
down the road? I don't think it's an honest attempt to understand
In one fell swoop, you can turn America from the greatest nation
in the history of the world--our productivity feeds the
world--into the most evil nation in the history of the world. The
idea that we're destroying the world is accepted more because it's
an attack on America as evil polluters than it is because it's
QUESTION: Since you're here from Hollywood, let's talk
about the future. There are conservatives in Hollywood; they just
don't want to put their heads out of the hole in the ground. Where
do you see us getting to the tipping point, or where can we get
along the road of retaking?
MR. SAYET: Let me tie those two questions together very
quickly. One of the things that conservatives recognize is
that the answer to problems is progress, and fortunately,
technological progress has seen the conservatives find alternative
Back in the studio day, you needed to work at the studio, and
there was no place else to go; but now you have a Mel Gibson who
can find unique ways of distributing and promoting, and there's the
Liberty Film Festival that my friends run and whatnot. I am able to
promote my shows via the Internet and through all kinds of
technologies that would have made it impossible just five or seven
or ten years ago. So as more and more channels come on cable,
you're going to have more and more opportunities for unique voices,
and because we are so incredibly right, they find us.
QUESTION: Can you talk about the term
"progressivism," how that sort of replaced liberalism in a lot
of ways as the new way they talk about themselves and what it
means to be a progressive?
MR. SAYET: What I find interesting is how often what the
Liberal claims about himself is exactly the opposite of what the
truth is. Chris Matthews has this show called "Hardball," as if the
title is going to tell us what the show really is when it's really
quite the opposite. They've come to recognize that people recognize
Liberalism in its modern form as the policies that have failed
our schools, the policies that have failed us as a nation, the
policies that have done so little to help the black community to
get out of the rut that it's been in for the last 40 years in some
ways--and that it is a pejorative.
It's funny, because the Liberals very much recognize
themselves. I remember watching "Hannity & Colmes," and Sean
Hannity said of Nancy Pelosi that she's a San Francisco liberal,
and immediately Alan Colmes yelled at him that he was trying to
demonize her. How do you demonize someone by stating the facts?
So suddenly they decide, "Okay, people have caught onto us about
Liberalism; now let's call ourselves progressive. We won't be
progressive in the slightest. It's just a name. It's just an