Podcast Summary: "If Books Could Kill" – Richard Hanania's "The Origins of Woke"

Release Date: July 11, 2024

Hosts Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri delve into Richard Hanania's provocative book, "The Origins of Woke," dissecting its arguments against contemporary notions of wokeness. Throughout the episode, they critically analyze Hanania's perspectives, highlighting both the content and the authors' reactions to it.

1. Introduction to "The Origins of Woke"

Peter [00:00]:
"God, this book's so fucking stupid. I regret choosing it."

Michael and Peter open the episode with palpable frustration, setting the tone for their critical examination of Hanania's work. They express skepticism about the book's value, hinting at its controversial stance on wokeness.

2. Understanding Hanania's Thesis

Hanania's central premise revolves around the assertion that modern wokeness has distorted civil rights laws, transforming them into tools for enforcing ideological conformity rather than addressing genuine discrimination.

Peter [03:08]:
"This book is about the origins of modern wokeness... it's aimed at powerful conservatives, especially... the next Trump administration."

The hosts recognize that Hanania's target audience is primarily conservative policymakers seeking to rollback progressive reforms.

3. Key Arguments Presented in the Book

a. Disparate Impact

Hanania critiques the concept of disparate impact, where actions without explicit discriminatory intent can still result in legal liability if they disproportionately affect marginalized groups.

Peter [09:36]:
"Civil Rights act made discrimination in employment illegal, but it didn't define what counts as discrimination... Enter the Supreme Court."

He references the landmark case Griggs v. Duke Power Co., arguing that the broad interpretation of discrimination hampers businesses striving to hire based on merit.

Michael [11:03]:
"No company is disproportionately white male anymore. Because if you do that, they send a SWAT team."

The hosts challenge Hanania's portrayal, suggesting that the reality is more nuanced and that numerous studies have documented persistent discrimination despite policies.

b. Harassment Law

Hanania extends his critique to workplace harassment laws, claiming they have been overextended to regulate trivial or offensive speech, stifling free expression.

Peter [16:17]:
"Offensive language and pornography can constitute a hostile workplace, even if not targeted at any particular employee."

He cites cases where minor infractions are treated with excessive severity, using examples like restrictive sign policies and inappropriate internal memos.

Michael [23:03]:
"I can just have, like, porn posters in my cubicle?"

The hosts argue that Hanania misrepresents these laws, emphasizing that genuine harassment is harmful and not merely about offensive language.

c. Age and Disability Discrimination

Hanania asserts that age and disability discrimination laws conflict with meritocracy, particularly in high-performance industries reliant on cognitive abilities.

Peter [31:21]:
"Brains naturally deteriorate as they get older, meaning that the principle that one should not discriminate against the elderly is at war with the principle of merit."

Michael [32:00]:
"I'm advocating for firing at least some people who are totally fine and able to do their job just because they're old."

The hosts counter by clarifying that legitimate performance issues are not discrimination, and age/disability protections aim to prevent unjust termination based on inherent traits.

d. Race and the Social Construction of Categories

Hanania explores how government classifications of race have been shaped by activist agendas, arguing that these constructs perpetuate division rather than address true disparities.

Peter [36:00]:
"Hananya's arguing that the Hispanic label is popularized because the government endorsed it."

He references Christina Mora's "Making Hispanics," which details the political mobilization and identity formation among Mexican American activists during the civil rights era.

Michael [43:02]:
"If it's someone who's wealthy, it's easier for that person to be kind of welcomed into white culture."

The hosts critique Hanania's interpretation, suggesting that he overlooks the systemic challenges faced by various racial groups beyond mere identity labels.

4. Analysis of Hanania’s Approach and Critique

Michael and Peter consistently challenge Hanania's assertions, accusing him of misrepresenting legal principles and overlooking empirical evidence of ongoing discrimination. They highlight his tendency to present strawman arguments, where he oversimplifies or distorts the positions of those he critiques.

Peter [05:20]:
"He creates what I think is a straw man where he says, liberals believe that every disparity is discrimination."

Michael [47:21]:
"His solutions section... it's like you can just be racist and play porn at work."

The hosts emphasize that Hanania's portrayal lacks nuance and fails to acknowledge the complexities of enforcing non-discriminatory practices in diverse workplaces.

5. Discussion on Solutions and Future Implications

Hanania advocates for dismantling current civil rights frameworks, promoting free market principles as the solution to societal disparities.

Peter [46:35]:
"He wants to see the Civil Rights Act pared back until... it's illegal to do intentional discrimination."

Michael [48:44]:
"What if the hand that I use to masturbate in front of my colleagues at work is, in fact, the invisible hand of Adam Smith's free markets?"

The hosts critique this libertarian stance, arguing that relying solely on market forces overlooks entrenched biases and structural inequalities that necessitate regulatory intervention.

Peter [51:32]:
"Standardized processes... they're found to reduce the most obvious discrimination."

They counter by presenting empirical studies demonstrating the persistence of discrimination and the effectiveness of certain regulatory measures in mitigating biases.

6. The Controversy Surrounding Hanania

Towards the episode's conclusion, Michael and Peter address a pivotal controversy: Hanania's past association with white supremacist websites and his attempts to distance himself from those views.

Peter [56:28]:
"The Huffington Post ran a bit of an expose on Richard where they revealed... he used to post explicitly racist and sexist content under a pseudonym."

Michael [60:24]:
"I believe in all that stuff. I just say it differently now."

The hosts express skepticism about Hanania's reformation, questioning the sincerity of his renouncement of past extremist views and highlighting the continuity between his previous and current ideologies.

7. Conclusion: Evaluating "The Origins of Woke"

Michael and Peter conclude the episode by reaffirming their critical stance on Hanania's book, emphasizing the dangers of mainstreaming extremist views under the guise of rational critique.

Peter [60:37]:
"The real failure here is on the part of the mainstream media who platformed him both before and after he was exposed as this former white supremacist."

Michael [61:27]:
"These libertarian arguments are so funny because I don't think he realizes... he's essentially making an argument against the concept of rights."

They stress the importance of scrutinizing such works to prevent the perpetuation of harmful ideologies masquerading as legitimate discourse.

Notable Quotes:

• Peter [00:00]:
  "God, this book's so fucking stupid. I regret choosing it."

• Michael [11:03]:
  "No company is disproportionately white male anymore. Because if you do that, they send a SWAT team."

• Peter [16:17]:
  "Offensive language and pornography can constitute a hostile workplace, even if not targeted at any particular employee."

• Peter [31:21]:
  "Brains naturally deteriorate as they get older, meaning that the principle that one should not discriminate against the elderly is at war with the principle of merit."

• Michael [43:02]:
  "If it's someone who's wealthy, it's easier for that person to be kind of welcomed into white culture."

• Peter [56:28]:
  "The Huffington Post ran a bit of an expose on Richard where they revealed... he used to post explicitly racist and sexist content under a pseudonym."

Final Thoughts:

The hosts of "If Books Could Kill" provide a robust critique of Richard Hanania's "The Origins of Woke," challenging its foundational arguments and highlighting the potential implications of its advocated policies. Their analysis underscores the importance of informed discourse on civil rights and the perils of oversimplifying complex societal issues.