Building Practical Solutions to Homelessness

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour

Episode: Building Practical Solutions to Homelessness

Air Date: May 29, 2026
Host: Scott Bertram
Guest: Mary Thoreau, Chairman & CEO of the Independent Institute

---

Episode Theme

This episode explores America’s ongoing struggle with homelessness and the quest for effective, transformative solutions. Host Scott Bertram invites Mary Thoreau to discuss her book "Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions," delving into the complexities and root causes of homelessness, critiquing current policies, exposing problems with funding and accountability, and highlighting models of success that foster dignity, independence, and practical change.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Complex Causes of Homelessness

• Individualized Crisis:
  • Homelessness is not a monolith; people arrive at it through vastly different paths—addiction, mental illness, childhood trauma, or sheer bad luck.
  • Quote: “I mean, there certainly are addiction issues and there are mental health issues which do account for large numbers of people... A lot of it comes out of childhood trauma. There are so many broken homes, so much violence in homes and children just are not enabled to become functioning adults.” (Mary Thoreau, 01:48)
• Trauma as Core Driver:
  • Trauma, often leading to addiction or mental health struggles, is seen as a primary root—complicating effective solution design.
  • Quote: “Trauma can also manifest itself as mental illness and then self medicating trauma can manifest itself as addiction.” (B, 02:19)
• Not Hopeless:
  • Many individuals, even with severe challenges, can and do find their way out when given proper support.

---

2. Policy Failures: One-Size-Fits-All and "Housing First" [03:20–07:08]

• Housing First Policy Critique:
  • The federal government’s adoption of "Housing First" as a universal solution has failed to address underlying causes.
  • “In 2013, the federal government adopted Housing first as the one size fits all policy solution for homelessness. And it’s a terrible...solution. ...That is so far from the truth. You have not done anything to address the underlying issues that put them into homelessness.” (B, 03:28)
• Moral and Utilitarian Flaws:
  • Permanent supportive housing assumes the homeless will remain dependent forever—an objectionable and disempowering stance.
  • “One is moral. You’re assuming permanent supportive housing, the people have to be permanently supported in housing. They’re not going to get any better. You’re just going to warehouse them forever. And that is just so objectionable.” (B, 05:24)
• Lack of Services and Scalability:
  • The original pilot program paired housing with services, but when scaled, housing alone is delivered without wraparound care.
  • Costs are prohibitive (e.g., $1.5 million per unit in LA), and construction lags far behind need.
  • Critical services (workforce training, ID help, mental health care, etc.) are often missing.
  • “You don’t supply those with a one size fits all solution of here’s your apartment, good luck.” (B, 07:03)

---

3. "Homelessness Industrial Complex": Funding & Accountability Issues [07:08–09:46]

• Massive Spending, Little Oversight:
  • California spent $24 billion over five years; results are untracked and unclear.
  • Quote: “There was an audit from the state auditor last year that said that California spent $24 billion over five years on homelessness services, and it cannot account for where that money went and what outcomes it produced.” (B, 07:52)
• Corrupted Nonprofit Sector:
  • Nonprofits can become distracted and corrupted by unrestricted government dollars; stories of lavish misuse abound.
• Focus on Outputs, Not Outcomes:
  • Success is measured by money spent or materials distributed, not by meaningful change or success rates.
  • “Anything that the government does report on homelessness is all outputs...but nothing about, well, what did you achieve with it?” (B, 08:44)
• Accountability Vacuum:
  • Policymakers rarely demand rigorous reporting or measurable success.

---

4. Solutions That Work: Housing Readiness, Dignity, and Community Integration [09:46–16:36]

• Housing Readiness Programs:
  • Programs designed to move people from the streets to self-sufficiency with individualized plans: recovery, mental healthcare, workforce training, life skills.
  • Quote: “Housing readiness programs provide people a path...from the streets to self sufficiency or their full potential...It provides recovery services...mental health stabilization...workforce training, life skills training...” (B, 09:46)
• The Salvation Army’s "The Way Out" (San Francisco):
  • Offers detox, long-term programs, employment help, and supports extended independent living in a safe, sober environment.
• Haven for Hope (San Antonio):
  • A holistic, community-wide model bringing together police, fire, hospitals, nonprofits, businesses, and volunteers.
  • 22-acre campus with individualized case management, strict sobriety, and wraparound services.
  • “They have a 22 acre campus right next to downtown. And it offers everything from just a safe sleeping site with showers and meals and access to services if people want to avail themselves of it, to a secure campus where people can live.” (B, 12:03)
  • Memorable Moment: Success attributed to breaking down silos; “The biggest problem in the homeless industrial complex...is you have everybody operating in silos. Nobody is talking to each other. Nobody is coordinating with one another... If you can just open up lines of communication, that gets a long way towards a solution.” (B, 13:17)
• Restoring Dignity and Independence:
  • True success: individuals become free of substance abuse, stabilize mental health, hold jobs, maintain homes, build healthy relationships.
  • “It looks like they have a life, you know, very much as you and I have...a restored life where they're employed, sober...they can live with joy.” (B, 15:25)

---

5. Accountability and Defining Success [16:36–18:15]

• Measurable Outcomes:
  • Private donors demand specific reporting and outcomes; government funders often do not.
  • “Private donors...require very detailed reports on how we use their money and what outcomes we achieved with it. It’s not good enough for us to go to them and say, oh, we did really good things with it without any proof.” (B, 16:51)
• Perverse Incentives in Public Administration:
  • Failures increase budgets, creating the wrong incentives for bureaucracy.

---

6. Public Attitudes, Advocacy, & Emerging Change [18:15–21:58]

• Emotional Responses Fuel Policy:
  • Pity and compassion are more common reactions than disgust, even amid dire conditions.
  • “And I kind of expected that people were going to be really disgusted and fed up...But the reaction I heard most was compassion. I mean, deep compassion.” (B, 18:39)
• People Desperate for Solutions:
  • When shown that solutions exist (“Beyond Homeless” documentary/book), people become energized and eager to help.
  • Grassroots activism in San Francisco led to political change and practical shifts, e.g., the election of a pragmatic mayor who prioritizes sober living programs and real accountability.

---

7. Role of Local vs. Federal Government [21:58–23:34]

• Change Comes from the Community:
  • Effective solutions arise locally, through broad collaboration among public services, nonprofits, business, and volunteers.
  • “What people can do is start holding gatherings where they bring together again every sector in the community...just start having conversations about how can we combine, how can we work together on an initiative that would more likely succeed than what we’ve been doing.” (B, 22:14)
• Overcoming Resistance:
  • Some in the nonprofit/public sector worry about losing power, but positive framing and incremental collaboration fosters progress.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On the failure of Housing First:
  • “They’re inside, but they’re still culturally homeless. And they die at higher rates when they're put into isolated housing by themselves than they do when they're, you know, oddly, in community, in the streets.” — Mary Thoreau, (03:03)
• On the need for meaningful accountability:
  • “Nobody is measuring. Nobody is asking these nonprofits to provide reporting on what they're doing with the money and importantly, what the outcomes are.” — Mary Thoreau, (08:12)
• On success and dignity:
  • “It looks like they have a life, you know, very much as you and I have...they can live with joy.” — Mary Thoreau, (15:25)
• On the power of engaged communities:
  • “People understood that they were passing people's suffering and nobody was helping them effectively and they wanted [to act]. One reason our documentary was...greeted so incredibly enthusiastically...it casts a vision that the way things are is not the way they have to be and that there are solutions.” — Mary Thoreau, (19:53)
• On collective local action:
  • “If you can just open up lines of communication, that gets a long way towards a solution.” — Mary Thoreau, (13:37)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:25 – Introduction and framing of homelessness as a multi-causal crisis
• 01:48 – Causes of homelessness: trauma, addiction, mental health, and luck
• 03:20 – Critique of "Housing First" and federal policy
• 07:08 – Funding problems and the “homelessness industrial complex”
• 09:46 – Housing readiness programs and examples of success (Salvation Army, Haven for Hope)
• 12:03 – Detailed Haven for Hope operations and outcomes
• 16:36 – Defining and demanding accountability
• 18:39 – How public perceptions and emotion have fueled activism and policy change, especially in San Francisco
• 21:58 – The vital role of local, cross-sector collaboration in lasting solutions

---

Takeaways

• Homelessness is deeply individualized, with trauma at its root for many.
• “Housing First” is criticized for ignoring underlying issues and fostering dependency, and for its tremendous cost with little accountability.
• Billions are spent annually, but outcomes are rarely measured or tied to true life transformation.
• Local, collaborative "housing readiness" programs like Haven for Hope show strong, scalable results, restoring both individual dignity and community health.
• Lasting solutions require breaking down silos, mutual accountability, and a focus on measurable, multifaceted outcomes.
• Grassroots, compassion-driven activism can push cities toward pragmatic, transformative change.

---

For further learning:

• Book: Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions by Mary Thoreau
• Documentary: Beyond Homeless
• Organizations mentioned: The Salvation Army (San Francisco’s "The Way Out"), Haven for Hope (San Antonio)

Guest Resource: More from the Independent Institute at independent.org

Transcript

[A]

From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, nurtured and honored. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners across the country.

[B]

So there were terrible street conditions almost everywhere and I kind of expected that people were going to be, you know, really disgusted. But the reaction I heard most was compassion. I mean, deep compassion.

[A]

This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. That was Mary Thoreau, chairman of the board of directors and CEO of the Independent Institute. Her book is Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. We talk with Mary in depth in just a moment on today's program. Later on, Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department is back to conclude her story on the history of phlogiston theory and fire and how combustion works. First, we're joined now by Mary Thoreau. She's chairman and chief executive officer at the Independent Institute. More at Independent Mary, thanks so much for joining us.

[B]

Thank you so much for inviting me.

[A]

Talking about your recent book which people can find Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions, Homelessness is more complex than people think. You argue and you say there's not a single cause, of course, of homelessness. Can you walk us through the range from systemic issues to personal crisis? How do people find themselves in, in homelessness?

[B]

Well, as I think we all agree, people are individuals and therefore they have very individualized paths into homelessness. Anything from, I mean, there certainly are addiction issues and there are mental health issues which do account for large numbers of people who are experiencing homelessness. But I've talked to, oh, I don't know, scores or hundreds of people over the years I've been involved in this work and it's varied. A lot of it comes out of childhood trauma. There are so many broken homes, so much violence in homes and children just are not enabled to become functioning adults. I'd say trauma is the largest driver. Trauma can also manifest itself as mental illness and then self medicating trauma can manifest itself as addiction. But I've also talked to people just, you know, literally did have bad luck and some of it really terrible luck. Fortunately, those are the ones who can usually be helped out of homelessness the quickest. The people who have severe mental illness or drug addiction or a combination of the both, which is very common or they're more tricky ones to help, but they can be helped. And we have countless examples of people who have been helped to transform their lives to reach their full potentials. It's not hopeless, and our government treats it as if it is.

[A]

On the whole, would you say we're better today in dealing with the problem of homelessness than we were, say, 30 years ago?

[B]

No, we're much worse at it. In 2013, the federal government adopted Housing first as the one size fits all policy solution for homelessness. And it's a terrible, quote, unquote solution. It claims that the reason people are experiencing, well, the term homelessness, I mean, that implies that people are in the streets because they don't have a home. If you give them a home, you've solved their problem. And that is so far from the truth. You have not done anything to address the underlying issues that put them into homelessness. As one Salvation army officer I spoke to said about Housing first is they're inside, but they're still culturally homeless. And they die at higher rates when they're put into isolated housing by themselves than they do when they're, you know, oddly, in community, in the streets.

[A]

So what happens at that point, Housing first is you're critical of it. In the book Beyond Homeless, it doesn't address the root causes. Once people get the housing, the housing first, what ends up happening generally.

[B]

So Housing first came out of a very limited pilot program of people who were severely mentally ill and suffering from severe problems and were housed with accompanying services to address their issues. And that worked well for that small set of the population. As always, the ARMA decided, oh, it works well. Give it to, let's apply it to absolutely everybody. And there are several problems with it. One is it's not being built. It's very expensive. Here in California, LA now is building permanent supportive housing units for one and a half million dollars each. That's to house one person. There's a lot of pushback from these developments being built, rightly so. So not many of them are getting built. And it's so expensive, they could spend an infinite number of an infinite amount of money on it and you would not have sufficient housing. But the more important issue of it is this, you know, housing first or so called permanent supportive housing. Well, there are a couple problems with it. One is moral. You' assuming permanent supportive housing, the people have to be permanently supported in housing. They're not going to get any better. You're just going to warehouse them forever. And that is just so objectionable. People do have the ability to come out of homelessness and reach their full potential. And many of them can become fully independent. And that is what we wish for people. The utilitarian issue with it is, again, it's not addressing the issues that put them into homelessness in the first place. And those are many and varied. The models that we cite in the book are programs that provide the many services that people need on an individual basis. Some people need workforce training to become employable. Some people need mental health care, they need recovery services, and they need help finding employment, getting their id. Some people, it's just as simple as they don't have an id. They need an id, they need a mailing address so that when they apply for jobs, they can get responses and so on. So there are myriad things that people need and you don't supply those with a one size fits all solution of here's your apartment, good luck.

[A]

You have the phrase the homelessness industrial complex inside the book Beyond Homeless in chapter six. Specifically, you're looking at San Francisco, the dollars spent on programs as compared to the dollars that actually make it to the people experiencing homelessness. What's that mix in San Francisco and how should it change?

[B]

Well, the term is not original with me. It's a widely used term, but it's very true. In California, literally billions of dollars are being directed, quote, unquote, at homelessness. There was an audit from the state auditor last year that said that California spent $24 billion over five years on homelessness services, and it cannot account for where that money went and what outcomes it produced. The same is true in San Francisco. The same is true almost everywhere. There are vast numbers of money, taxpayer money, being thrown at homelessness, directed to various nonprofits which get corrupted by that money. They lose their way. And there are stories almost every day on the corruption involved. People are directing millions of dollars to their own pockets, to that of friends on lavish trips on, you name it, it's going there. And again, nobody is measuring. Nobody is asking these nonprofits to provide reporting on what they're doing with the money and importantly, what the outcomes are. Anything that the government does report on homelessness is all outputs. Well, we spent $20 million on this. We put 8,000 people out on the streets too, with outreach services. We passed out 500,000 needles and so on, but nothing about, well, what did you achieve with it? So I blame the people responsible for handing out the money. You know, these stories all vilify the nonprofits and the corruption of the nonprofits. But to quote the great Harry Brown, when you strew the streets with raw meat and packs of wild dogs come, you don't blame the dogs.

[A]

Mary Thoreau is with us. Her book, Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. So let's talk about what works in beyond homeless. You talk about housing readiness programs. What are those programs? How are they different philosophically from Housing first?

[B]

Well, housing readiness programs provide people a path from an appropriate path from the streets to self sufficiency or their full potential, whatever that may be. And it provides recovery services for those who are suffering from substance use disorder. It provides mental health stabilization for those who can be stabilized as well. Some people will need full custodial care, but that's a minority, and so on. There's a program here in San Francisco called the Way out, run by the Salvation army and it goes everywhere from detox to recovery, then into a long term program with workforce training, life skills training, including you can spend a year or two just in their safe and sober residency. You may be fully employed, but you're living in an environment in which as you hit life's bumps and you're tempted to go back to the crutch of drugs or alcohol, you're in an environment that helps you resist that temptation to resume your addiction until you're really ready to go out into the so called real world and live in an environment in which there is temptation at your doorstep and you're prepared to resist it and continue on in a well functioning life. The other one we cite a lot and it's also very featured in our documentary which accompanies the book, which is also called Beyond Homeless, is Haven for Hope in San Antonio.

[A]

Right, Mary, this is one I'm aware of. I think we've talked about it in a previous conversation we've had. Tell us more about Haven for Hope, how it's different from other programs and why you think it's been particularly successful.

[B]

It's been operating for 15 years and it's just the most marvelous model, mostly because the entire community is involved in it. Every part of the community. You know, the police, fire, ems, the hospital system, the business community, the volunteer community. They partner with 100 nonprofits, 80 of whom office on their campus. So they have a 22 acre campus right next to downtown. And it offers everything from just a safe sleeping site with showers and meals and access to services if people want to avail themselves of it, to a secure campus where people can live. They do have to maintain their sobriety. They have to be actively working on their program, which is highly individualized. They come into that campus, they're interviewed, hey, tell us your story, what happened to you? And from that information, together they can identify, okay, what's your barrier? And then they can bring in the appropriate nonprofit service providers to build a whole case management team around that individual and work with them as they learn how to transform their lives and go to a fully functional outside life. Again, they've been operating for 15 years. It's incredibly cost effective, it's incredibly results effective, and it's been fully documented with lots and lots of data proving its efficacy. So we really hold that up as what every community can and should be doing. And the most important part, again, is to bring all of the sectors together. The biggest problem in the homeless industrial complex, and the reason we have so much dysfunction, is you have everybody operating in silos. Nobody is talking to each other. Nobody is coordinating with one another. They're often working at cross purposes. And if you can just open up lines of communication, that gets a long way towards a solution.

[A]

We'll continue with Mary Thoreau next. Her book is Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. If you haven't made plans for this weekend yet, well, now is the time because Revolutionary America is here this Friday, Saturday and Sunday, May 31, June 1, June 2, in theaters. Go to Hillsdale. Edu Film to find a local theater and get your tickets. This is a documentary experience from Hillsdale College that tells the true story of of the American founding. Our ancestors risked it all, their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, fighting for liberty in the American Revolution. With 250 years on the line, make sure you and your children know this story. Revolutionary America is in theaters May 31, June 1, June 2, Hillsdale. Edu Film Hillsdale. Edu film Film to find a theater near you and get your tickets this weekend for Revolutionary America. We continue with Mary Thoreau, CEO of the Independent Institute. Her book, Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. Mary, you argue that these housing readiness programs that the models help to restore dignity and independence. You mentioned a fully functioning outside life. After going through these programs, what does that look like in real life for someone coming out of homelessness after going through these programs?

[B]

It looks like they have a life, you know, very much as you and I have. They can maintain a home, they can establish healthy relationships. If they had a family, they can reunite with their family and go on to a restored life where they're employed, sober. If they have mental illness issues, those are stabilized and they can live with joy. And almost every community, Scott, has a good program. I mean, there are wonderful programs. Literally almost everywhere I've looked. The only issue is that most of them can only help A few people at a time. And we need solutions that scale. So that's why we argue for the Haven for Hope type of model which address the issue on a whole community wide basis. But all of those smaller programs can operate integrated with those and continue to operate. They don't have to feel threatened that, oh, that's an either or thing. They can be a part of the holistic community wide addressing of the issue.

[A]

Now, Beyond Homeless stresses accountability for all programs. That means we have to measure success. And there's a clear definition in the book. What do you consider success? When we look at various programs, it's

[B]

a very detailed definition, but in sum it's you are free of substance use disorder of addiction, your mental illness has been addressed, you were able to hold a job, you were able to live independently, you were able to have healthy relationships. You know, private donors, I run a nonprofit. Our donors require very detailed reports on how we use their money and what outcomes we achieved with it. It's not good enough for us to go to them and say, oh, we did really good things with it without any proof. And the problem with, we've had so much crowding out of private philanthropy, especially in the homelessness area, where years ago a lot of private philanthropists just said, well, it's hopeless and threw up their hands because the government programs have been exacerbating it so much that it looked hopeless indeed. So mostly the funding currently comes from government. And government bureaucrats do not demand accountability. They just throw the money out there. And as we know from public choice economics, if the problem gets worse, they're rewarded by getting bigger budgets and bigger staffs because, oh, now we've got a worst problem. We have to get more money. So it's perverse incentives.

[A]

As you know, Mary Thoreau with us, her book Beyond Homeless. This is an issue in which people have very emotional responses, pity, frustration or resignation that the problem isn't getting better. These emotional responses we feel when we see those experiencing homelessness, have they shaped public policy here in the past couple of decades and has it shaped its for the worse?

[B]

You know, I was really surprised when we first did, we did the documentary. We had a policy report the documentary was based on. Then we did the book. And I was doing, this was during COVID and I was doing a lot of community screenings of our short documentary. And since it's 40, it's 38 minutes long, we would follow it with audience Q and A or audience just discussion. And I did, I don't know, probably 50 of these in San Francisco with a wide variety of audiences. And I expected, especially since San Francisco had gotten so bad, we had the poop app and we literally had horrible street conditions almost everywhere because San Francisco is a very small city geographically, so there were terrible street conditions almost everywhere. And I kind of expected that people were going to be really disgusted and fed up and blaming the people living in the streets and what do we do to get these out of here? But the reaction I heard most was compassion. I mean, deep compassion. People understood that they were passing people's suffering and nobody was helping them effectively and they wanted. So one reason our documentary was so incredible, it was greeted so incredibly enthusiastically is because it's the title is, you know, as the book and the documentary is Beyond Finding Hope. And it casts a vision that the way things are is not the way they have to be and that there are solutions. And audiences got so excited about the kind. Oh my gosh, you mean there are solutions to this? Oh, how do I get involved? Oh, you know, what can we do in my neighborhood? Oh. So there was a lot of activism, street level activism, and people really pushed back against the status quo in San Francisco, formed, I don't know, countless new associations from Grow San Francisco Neighbors Together, San Francisco, all kinds of things. And as a result, they pushed back against what the government policies were. They elected a very pragmatic mayor, moderate mayor Dan Lurie, whose background he's of the Levi Strauss fortune, but he has been doing mostly philanthropy in his life. And he just came in and is just no nonsense and said he wants to turn San Francisco around. And everybody was like, yes, yes, close down drug markets, make open air drug use illegal again, and start offering a Sober Living solution residency program rather than just strictly these really dystopian housing first units that you wouldn't want to put your dog in kind of thing. So big changes going on here and it's very exciting. So when people do understand there are solutions, they want to get involved. They want to help the people they see that are suffering. They just haven't known how.

[A]

Mary Thoreau with us. Beyond Homeless is the book. What role can local communities play versus, say, the federal government? Is there a top down approach that works or is it more bottom up as we see with some local organizations like Haven for Hope in San Antonio?

[B]

I really think it needs to be done on a community basis. And what people can do is start holding gatherings where they bring together again every sector in the community, you know. Yes, people from the government, from the EMS and emergency response systems, people from the hospitals, the nonprofit sector, very importantly the business sector, volunteer organizations and so on, and just start having conversations about how can we combine, how can we work together on an initiative that would more likely succeed than what we've been doing. That's what we've been doing here in San Francisco. We've been organizing convenings and people are very interested in working together. There's some resistance, especially from the public sector and some of the nonprofits. They think, well, if we work together, we're going to lose our budget, we're going to lose our power and so on. But overall, we've been able to frame it as a very positive let's work together to identify a couple of, you know, let's just identify one thing we can work together on that would help improve the situation and then build from there. And people are quite open to it and interested when you ask them to help, they're willing and able to help.

[A]

Mary Thoreau is chairman and chief executive officer of the Independent Institute. You can find [e-mail] and the book is Beyond Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes, Transformative Solutions. Mary, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[B]

Thank you, Scott. Such a pleasure to talk with you.

[A]

Up next, Dr. Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department is back. She'll give us the conclusion to her story about phlogiston theory, fire and how combustion works. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[C]

Hello.

[A]

This is Jeremiah Regan, executive director of Hillsdale College Online Learning, and I am the executive producer and one of the screenwriters of Revolutionary America, Hillsdale College's new documentary about the founding, showing in theaters only May 31 through June 2. To find a theater near you or to buy tickets in advance, go to Hillsdale. Edu Film. That's Hillsdale. Edu Film. Witness the founding of our nation described in vivid detail and with sharp accuracy by Hillsdale professors and guests, including narrator Tom Selleck. Take your friends and your family. Go see Revolutionary America in theaters only May 31 through June 2. Buy tickets at Hillsdale. Edu Film. On the new episode of the Larry Arn Show, Hillsdale College President Larry Arn sits down with senior journalism fellow at Hillsdale College and editor in chief at the Federalist, Molly Hemingway, for a one on one conversation.

[C]

You only have a self governing republic if you can trust the outcome of elections. Who's eligible to vote? How do you make sure that the people who are on your list of being eligible to vote are the voters themselves? What do you do to clean up a list? What are you doing to make sure people aren't registered in multiple jurisdictions? What are you doing to ensure the integrity of control of the ballot? Is their custody of the ballots from the moment they're printed to the moment they're counted and beyond.

[A]

Listen to this exclusive interview with Molly Hemingway right now only available on the Larry Arn Show. Find it on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at Podcast Hillsdale. Edu or wherever you get your audio and subscribe to receive new episodes delivered right to your device. That's Podcast Hillsdale. Eduardo. Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to find more Hillsdale College audio on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. More at podcast hillsdale.edu. we're joined by Dr. Marty Billman. She is associate professor of chemistry here at Hillsdale College. Dr. Billman, thanks for joining us.

[C]

Yes, thank you so much.

[A]

We continue with our second part of the Discovery of Fire, part of our Drama in Scientific Discovery series that we've been talking about. Last time we talked about what is fire, we talked about Boyle and Hook and phlogiston theory. It was a bad theory. That's sort of where we picked things up here in part two. So phlogiston theory is a bad theory. It will take a while for people to understand that. But what came next in the discovery of fire? Scientists wasted time and resources for a while now just chasing a bad theory down.

[C]

One might think that, but fortunately, good science can still happen with bad theories in the background. And of course, it's not to say that some resources weren't, you know, lost or, or don't waste time, right? Yeah, exactly. So even though, yes, phlogiston theory was a bad theory, and if you missed part one, please go back and listen to part one. But logistian theory itself was not universally believed. So there were some good scientists working outside of that framework, like Joseph Black, one of the first, who kind of started getting into some thermodynamics in and stuff like that. But even within the wheelhouse of logistician theory, there were still some good scientists, right. Who had they're well intended. The folks were motivated to try again and kind of prove logistician theory, right, prove it superior to combustion theory, which is actually how fire works. So there was development for new glassware, new equipment. We were improving experimental design as time went on and our glassblowing prowess became, I mean, kind of top tier, especially if we're thinking this was not an industrial process. These were still people blowing glassware that we were getting more and more closed systems, more refined experimental setups. And so we were able to discover a great number of new gases, new elements, new compounds, of course. So, like, there is good work being done in other avenues. It's just the answer of what is fire was kind of a tricky subject still.

[A]

So who eventually disproves phlogiston theory to the satisfaction of most, if not all?

[C]

Yes, there are two big names. These are the names that I'm most excited to talk about in this particular series. But ironically, the one who, at least I would say is the one who ended up kind of setting up the fall of phlogiston theory was one of its biggest proponents. His name is Joseph Priestley. He was not a very well educated man. He was one who did come from a slightly lower class background, but he knew the right people and sometimes that's all you need to get into a new field. And so he loved to essentially just kind of mess around in the lab and see what he could find. And he did work alongside folks like Henry Cavendish, who ended up, he was one of the aforementioned scientists who discovered a new element and kind of was working on setting up all those new types of glassware. And both of them were pro phlogiston theory. Joseph Priestley specifically being the one who was like, this is right at all costs and I'm going to find a way to prove it. But kind of through again, I'm going to be a little cheeky here and say through kind of dumb luck he ended up stumbling upwards to the discovery of oxygen.

[A]

That seems like a pretty big deal. So what did Joseph Priestley do?

[C]

All right, so he again is attributed with the discovery of oxygen, even though he actually wasn't even the first to discover it. And I'm not even talking east versus Western world. I'm talking like there was a Swedish chemist by the name of Carl Scheele who actually discovered it like four years prior, but hadn't published his work. So again, because he wasn't published, people didn't know and he didn't want to publish until he kind of figured out what he actually had found. So, but we're going to put a pin in Carl Schiel because he again didn't actually, he's not involved with this direct, like, competitive story. But again, Joseph Priestley attributed with discovery of oxygen, although it's not right, he as stated, he kind of was a man of dumb luck. He discovered oxygen on accident and he published his results in 1775. So we are in the 1700s now. So it's been kind of 100 years since the Robertses had first proposed their theory of combustion. And he wasn't actually looking for anything specifically. He had been given some what now we would call mercury oxide. It's kind of a red powder. And he was not only given this, but a bunch of other kind of like, calcified or as again, we would say nowadays, kind of oxified or oxidized materials. And he was like, well, what happens if I take this red powder and heat it? Not even in a sophisticated way, like with a magnifying glass. Like, you know how kids take the magnifying glass?

[A]

I never did, but I understand.

[C]

Yes, exactly. So that's what he did. He's like, I'm going to take this magnify magnifying glass and refract the light to a pinpoint and burn this red powder and see what happens. Like, there was no hypothesis, no rationale. And don't get me wrong, it's fun sometimes to mess around in the lab, but it's just such a pivotal discovery. And he was just like, teehee, I'm having fun. So he then found this red powder kind of where the sunlight was being pinpointed, and heating the powder started to turn back into liquid mercury. And since he was doing this reaction kind of in like, an enclosed space, again kind of a gift from Henry Cavendish, he found that there was a gas that was being released as this red powder was kind of turning back into mercury. Well, he captured the gas because now we had the technology to do that and was like, well, let's characterize this gas and see what it is. And one of the means of characterization was seeing how well something burned. And he did find that this gas caused the fire to burn way more brightly than what it had before. And so he was like, aha, this gas is not phlogiston. Again, that would be so nice if he came to that conclusion, because then the two theories would just kind of collapse into one.

[A]

Right?

[C]

But no, he called this deplogisticated air, because when it burned, or when in the presence of fire, it was so ready to absorb the phlogiston, which again, according to him, the phlogiston was like the light and the heat and the kind of the essence of that fire. So because fire got bigger, he would like, ah, this air must be empty of phlogiston and ready to receive more of it than regular air.

[A]

How did this discovery, the discovery of oxygen, then lead to the downfall of phlogiston theory?

[B]

Aha.

[C]

So here's where our second player comes in another scientist who is a Frenchman, of which up until this point, really every scientist that I've named has been an Englishman taking research taking place in England. So now we have Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist, coming into the picture. And I cannot emphasize this enough out of the gate. Priestley and Lavoisier grew to hate each other.

[A]

Not scientific rivalry, exactly.

[C]

And it's like we have the Englishman and the Frenchmen fighting each other and. Right. We. We also kind of in the background have. Have a bunch of, you know, political turmoil that's, that's going to be involved here. But what Lavoisier did, and this. I'll wrap this back around a Priestly, but what Lavoisier did is he himself was not any type of theoretician. He didn't put any new theories together. He also did not discover any new elements, nor did he set up any new or design, any types of experimental glassware kind of designs. Rather, his mission was, I am going to take this new technology and go kind of back a hundred years, and with this new technology, I'm going to recreate a bunch of old experiments and see if the old theory still, like, stand to reason. He kind of went in assuming nothing and was like, I'm going to see experimentally what happens. So this meant that phlogiston theory was about to come under heavy scrutiny. But he, being Lavoisier, didn't go into all of this with, like, I'm going to take down phlogiston theory. Again, he kind of went in with no, intentionally, intentionally, no preconceived notions on how these theories worked. And he wanted to see which ones were real and which ones weren't. So we're going to go back to prior to the rivalry. Priestley was actually a big fan of Lavoisier's work. Again, they were all kind of, this is an era now of kind of increased publication, increased awareness even across the channel. And so Priestley would send essentially what we call fan letters to Lavoisier, like, praising him for his publications. Lavoisier was nothing if not prolifically published. Almost every month came out with some new type of article. And so Priestly was like, hey, can I come visit? We could share some of our ideas and see if we can't come to some greater understanding. And Priestley did go into this with the best of intentions, but again, kind of naive because Lavoisier was, although, yes, technically in standing, a gentleman, he was not a gentleman's gentleman. Okay, so 1774, the two have a dinner party. And naive Priestly shares. Oh, hey, I've discovered this new gas. I call it dephlogisticated air. Here's all of the deets on how I set up the experiment. And it is reproducible. I've done this a couple of different times, you know, with more than just the magnifying glass. And it just seems like all you need is heat and you can get this gas. And Lavoisier was like, you don't say. So Lavoisier, after the party repeats the experiment, collects this mysterious gas, rigorously tests it not only to see does it cause the fire to burn brighter, but also what types of properties does it have? And a few years later, 1777, Lavoisier publishes his new theory of combustion, which builds off of the Roberts original theory. And he states that flammable objects burn in the presence of this new gas that he, a couple of years later, would name oxygen. So he's also the one who named it oxygen.

[A]

Gotcha.

[C]

He then said there were a bunch of other details. He said, we have these two reactants going in again, some type of fuel and oxygen gas. And over the course of the year, at first, he did discover carbon dioxide being produced. It took him a couple more years to realize that water is produced as well. He was the one who pinned down these reactants, these products, and he was like, hey, look, I don't need Flegistin to describe this at all. Sorry, guys, Flegistin theory is not correct. And as he's publishing this, then of course it's like, well, what about Priestley? Poor Priestly. Well, Priestly all the while not only is getting angry, but he's saying like, oh, my. Essentially modern language, my intellectual property has been stolen and my philosophy is being ridiculed. And we kind of have to remember this is an era as well, where there were no, especially in like, England, France, 1700s. It wouldn't be another, like 50 or so years at least, before, like, intellectual property or copyright law would actually come into play. So Lavoisier was legally complete with within his right to do what he did, but he was kind of a jerk about it.

[A]

So how did Priestley retaliate for this action?

[C]

Yeah, so he continued to loudly proclaim, despite this mounting evidence over the next 10, 20 years against him, that phlogiston theory is correct. Lavoisier is just doing it wrong. He's missing something, however, and kind of unfortunately, this is where both men are kind of caught up with the world that they live in. This Is, as I had stated, an era of extreme political and social upheaval. And we would normally associate this, you know, with American Revolution America, like, because again, the year right now is like, kind of around 1777 is the last date that I'd stated. So America's a thing now. Hooray, the French Revolution is happening. Oh, no. And, well, Priestley is an Englishman, so surely he can't be in any danger. But unfortunately, you know, the political upheaval and tumultuousness kind of spanned everywhere in Europe at the time. And Priestley, although did have some friends in the scientific community, was somewhat of a social contrarian. He did not subscribe to the most popular church at the time. His political opinions were very contrarian as well. And so he didn't make a lot of friends. By 1794, he did have to flee the country. He was not only harassed, it started with minor vandalism of his house, but it did get to the point where his house was raided by a couple of the local common people in the village he lived in, and he needed to flee to go hang out with his sons in a completely different village to just get away from this. So eventually, though, his family had kind of piece by piece, been moving to America and he joined his sons in America. But even towards the end, he was still trying to publish these pro flagiston ideas. But now he's across the world. There's a great quote kind of towards the end of his life that was dated to around 1800, and he says, I feel perfectly confident on the. That I stand upon, though nearly alone, I am under no apprehension of defeat.

[A]

Okay, and what about Antoine Lavoisier? What happens with him?

[C]

All right, well, he's the guy.

[A]

He discovered oxygen. Yeah, he named it at least. Right?

[C]

That's right. He did also try and claim discovery of oxygen. But then, of course, Priestley was like, well, no, I actually have some publications. Right. So there was a lot of contention there. But essentially within the again, 10 to kind of 20 years that are post his publication of the Theory of combustion, he did continue to publish more and more works. However, they became increasingly kind of pointed at his scientific rivals. He stole experiments from not just Priestley, but a number of other folks. And so whereas at least Priestley had friends within the scientific community, Lavoisier had none. And it did get to the point where he, in his publications, were starting to call anyone who disagreed with him, despite. Right. Because he's like, look at all of this evidence I'm giving you guys. And you still disagree with me. You're idiots. All of you were idiots. And although, yes, his theories and interpretations are chemically correct, he was not a very great guy on record. He. Not just in his publications, but kind of interpersonally with other folks who barely tolerated him. He's known to have stated that there's only one person he believed to have been as smart as him, and that was his wife.

[A]

Well, he really was smart, if he said that.

[C]

That's right. And he did have a coup of allies in the scientific community, but ultimately, it was not enough to save him from the guillotine. So by 1793, he was arrested for being a member of the bourgeoisie, because not only was he a scientist, he also was a tax collector. He owned tobacco fields. He was a member of the aristocracy in the truest sense. So by 1794, he was beheaded. Having said that, it's not like, again, we don't have his publications. And in 1789, only a few years before he was beheaded, he had published what is regarded to be the first modern chemistry textbook, where a lot of our ideas actually still kind of go back to today. And if it weren't for the. Again, because this was France and a lot of the French kind of, again, the educated notions. How do I say this? The materials, the actual intellectual materials.

[B]

There we go.

[C]

Okay, so the intellectual materials from the aristocracy were burned in a lot of the cases. But fortunately, as Lavoisier was kind of correct, that his wife was pretty sharp. She was trilingual, as many of the ladies of the era were, and she took his textbook and translated it to both English and German. And she was not beheaded, fortunately, and was able to continue publishing this textbook in all three countries long after his death.

[A]

As we wrap up here on the discovery of fire, maybe we can explain what the benefit was with our new understanding of how combustion works. Where do we go with that?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So now that we actually know. Right, Again, because this textbook was now widely circulated, phlogiston theory rapidly fell off. It wasn't formally disproven until around the mid-1800s, but it was kind of on its last legs, you know, not many proponents left kind of in its death rows, if you will. So now that we have this new understanding for how combustion works, how it's really helped us kind of from that point moving forward has been now we know, okay, we have two primary reactants. We have the fuel, and we have oxygen gas, and we know what our products are. So we know what our waste products are. And from this, we have been able to say, okay, well, let's set up this kind of experiment. And if I want to make sure that I have, you know, this magnitude of heat released, I know exactly how much fuel I need. Because we know in exactly what proportions via a chemical reaction, this can take place.

[A]

Right.

[C]

One of the other kind of results of this law of combustion is now we also have the law of conservation of mass. And so. Right. Because if we know the species going in and the species going out, and fire is nothing more than kind of a visual and energetic byproduct, we also have an exact idea, not just a hypothetical, an exact idea of how much material we need. So, like, let's say we want to do something like escape Earth's gravity and get to the moon, Right. Well, how much fuel do we actually need to do that? We can calculate that on pen and paper without having to run a series of experiments with increasing amounts and wasting a bunch of material. So that's one really awesome thing. But also kind of because of the conservation of mass. Right. And that not only applies to combustion, but every chemical reaction. Well, now we are able to like, kind of, again, in advance, kind of predict, well, how much do I need of this chemical material in order to make a certain amount of products. So in this era of the turn of the century, we're getting to the 1800s now, what's around the corner? Industrial revolution. And so now we're able to kind of set up in the lab, well, if I want to make a certain pharmaceutical, if I want to synthesize a certain amount of dye, if I want to make some type of explosive material, I know exactly how much reactant I need in order to make that certain amount of product. And of course, that byproduct, if we want something like explosion, we know exactly again how much stuff we need to get that.

[A]

Dr. Marty Billman is associate professor of chemistry at Hillsdale College. Our Drama in Scientific Discovery series on the discovery of fire. Dr. Pillman, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[C]

Yes, thank you so much, Scott. And thank you, listeners. I hope to come back again.

[A]

That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Mary, Mary Thoreau from the independent institute and Dr. Marty Billman from Hillsdale's chemistry department. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at podcast hillsdale.edu or wherever you get your audio. Until next week, I'M Scott Bertram, and this has been the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.