Saving Hollywood From Itself

Summary

---

The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour

Episode: "Saving Hollywood From Itself"

Date: March 28, 2025
Host: Scott Bertram
Featured Guests: Dr. Kevin Porteous, Titus Tekkeira, Dr. Steve Gadaprow

---

Overview

This episode explores three major pillars of discussion:

1. Immigration Policy and H1B Visas – Dr. Kevin Porteous critically examines the history and ramifications of America’s skilled worker visa programs, grounding the debate in American founding principles and recent labor controversies.

2. The Crisis in Hollywood and the American Film Industry – Titus Tekkeira of the American Cinema Foundation unpacks why the Oscars and Hollywood productions are increasingly disconnected from mainstream America, discussing shifts toward streaming, the death of the theatrical experience, and declining comedy output.

3. Global Justice Theory in a Post-Cold War World – Dr. Steve Gadaprow introduces global justice theory, tracing its philosophical roots and illustrating its pervasive (and controversial) influence on contemporary American policy and identity debates.

---

1. Immigration and H1B Visas: Putting America First

Guest: Dr. Kevin Porteous, Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College
Segment Starts: [00:42]
Key Topics:

• Definition and Function of H1B Visas ([01:37])

  • Created by the Immigration Nationality Act (1952), H1B visas enable employers to bring in skilled workers for roles they claim cannot be filled by Americans.
  • “The companies will certify that they have attempted to find workers…unable to do so, and then…requesting that this person from outside the United States be allowed to enter under this visa…” – Dr. Kevin Porteous [01:37]

• Industries and Countries of Origin ([02:44], [03:14])

  • ~65% of H1B visas are for computer-related fields; 73% of recipients are from India, 12% from China.

• Controversy: Is There a True Labor Shortage? ([03:33–04:33])

  • Numerous scandals (e.g., Disney firing American workers to hire cheaper H1B labor) show abuse of the system.
  • “There’s no way that there was a shortfall here...they wanted to employ someone whom they could pay less money.” – Dr. Kevin Porteous [03:45]

• Founding Principles and the Balance of Universal and Particular ([05:19–06:37])

  • U.S. governance is founded on protecting its citizens’ rights, and immigration policy should reflect both universal justice and particular obligations to existing citizens.
  • “We ought to…have regard for and give preference to the people who compose this country...” – Dr. Kevin Porteous [05:38]

• Historical Context and Congressional Role ([06:37–09:44])

  • The Founders’ “hands-off” approach was due to circumstance, not ideology.
  • Contemporary debates link to enduring concerns about cultural transformation and social cohesion.

• America-First Labor Policy: Beyond Immigration ([09:44])

  • “You really have to emphasize that the whole point...is to secure again the blessings of liberty, but also the greatest possibility of a decent and dignified life and work for average people.” – Dr. Kevin Porteous [09:44]

---

2. Saving Hollywood From Itself: The Crisis of Film in America

Guest: Titus Tekkeira, Executive Director, American Cinema Foundation
Segment Starts: [13:18]
Key Topics:

• Oscars’ Irrelevance and the Gap with America ([13:50–16:35])

  • The 2024 Oscars highlighted the industry’s disconnect, with winning films few Americans cared about or saw.
  • “Nobody really respects these movies. Nobody really wants to watch them...Hollywood people were desperate to find something to vote for…” – Titus Tekkeira [14:24]
  • The Best Picture winner is described as “not quite a rom com,” meandering and poorly constructed.

• Cultural Shift: From National Event to Insular Trade Show ([16:35–19:48])

  • “The Oscars is very much in danger of becoming the Tonys...for a very small group of people...” – Scott Bertram [16:35]
  • Tekkeira laments the loss of collective experience, describing current awards as “the most un-American spectacle you can imagine,” marked not by controversy but by emptiness.
  • “It looks like it finally snapped.” – Titus Tekkeira [19:17]

• Streaming, the Collapse of Moviegoing, and Star-making ([19:48–23:18])

  • Streaming prioritized comfort over community, stripping film of its unique, shareable rite.
  • “Netflix won out to some extent...that killed cinema and replaced it with, indeed, the couch...The uniqueness of the experience has been wiped out...the ability of artists to say, I’ll put her in that picture and everybody will get it...You no longer have bargaining chips as an artist. You can’t say, I will be making stars...America ran out of stars.” – Titus Tekkeira [21:33–22:38]

• Death of Comedy and Spontaneity ([23:18–28:45])

  • Hollywood no longer produces broadly appealing comedies or romantic comedies. The genre required social trust and a fun-loving spirit now replaced by ideological risk-aversion and HR culture.
  • “Every romantic comedy you’d have now is actually an HR comedy...everything that is provocative, risky, thrilling...these are HR infractions. And that seems to have killed... the Tom Sawyer American, somewhat puckish, mischievous by hook or by crook, he’ll get her attention.” – Titus Tekkeira [24:34]
  • The inability to laugh, surprise oneself, or be caught off-guard by humor is symptomatic of a hyper-analyzed culture.

• Opportunities for Conservative Filmmakers ([28:45–32:36])

  • Production is moving to “red America,” notably Texas and Georgia, with local crews and talent. Conservatives must become creators, not just consumers or critics.
  • “Nobody thinks, you know, pay somebody to teach 18-year-old kids in college to start with an iPhone...and start filming, start editing...give them some critical distance, give them some skills...” – Titus Tekkeira [30:45]
  • Digital tech and regional migration offer a way to revitalize the “national memory” through new storytelling.

• Gene Hackman: An American Icon ([32:36–36:36])

  • Titus offers moving praise for Hackman’s roles in The Conversation and Heist, emphasizing his capacity to embody both the suffering and the integrity of the American middle class.
  • “Gene Hackman brought these two qualities together. He came literally out of that older America...But also he showed what’s interesting in this newer America. Granted, a lot of suffering...but it does make them interesting. You see human drama, longings that otherwise would not really be there. Facing up to our hopes and difficulties, the stuff you’ve lost and how do you have to manage things to just deal with it? ...That’s maturity. That’s a man. That’s somebody that could inspire.” – Titus Tekkeira [34:04–35:38]

---

3. The Rise of Global Justice Theory: Ideas, Ethics, and American Identity

Guest: Dr. Steve Gadaprow, recent graduate, Hillsdale Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship
Segment Starts: [38:28]

Key Topics:

• What is Global Justice Theory? ([39:17])

  • Ethical frameworks for international institutions and interstate conduct, especially as it relates to structures like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

• Critique of the Westphalian System ([41:15–45:09])

  • The traditional “law of nations” insisted that all states have equal rights and non-intervention is paramount.
  • Global justice theorists “ask, why should we be required to sit idly by as some foreign dictator brutally mistreats his people?” – Dr. Steve Gadaprow [41:20]
  • Desire for a more egalitarian world order and the mitigation of “arbitrary” factors like birthplace in determining life outcomes.

• Rawls and the Catalyst ([45:09–50:44])

  • Rawls’s A Theory of Justice sought to correct for the unfairness of arbitrary starting advantages in society.
  • Two main principles: fair equality of opportunity and the “difference principle” (inequality is only just if it benefits the least advantaged).
  • Global justice theorists admired Rawls but wanted to apply his domestic framework to the global stage.
  • “We should try to create a society where an individual’s choices, their character, matters more to their success. And arbitrary things…should matter less.” – Dr. Steve Gadaprow [50:21]

• Globalization, Interdependence, and the Post-Cold War Shift ([50:44–57:46])

  • As globalization deepened, theorists and policymakers agreed that problems (and their solutions) were increasingly cross-border. Rawls’s “closed systems” assumption no longer fit reality.
  • Charles Beitz and others in the late 1970s/80s argued for a “globalized” distributive justice.
  • The fall of the USSR sparked optimism for “the end of history” (Francis Fukuyama), fueling hopes for liberal-democratic convergence and cosmopolitan ethics.

• Cosmopolitanism’s Influence on Contemporary Policy ([58:12–63:37])

  • Modern cosmopolitanism demands moral parity between citizens and non-citizens in all global decisions, including immigration and aid.
  • “Anytime we make a decision that could potentially affect a broad range of people, we need to equally weight the claims of all who are affected.” – Dr. Steve Gadaprow [58:25]
  • Barack Obama’s 2016 UN speech exemplified this global citizenship ethic, prioritizing global benefits (e.g., poverty reduction via trade) even at the expense of American workers.
  • America First movements stand in sharp contrast: “The idea of America first… is the very antithesis of this global citizenship ethos.” – Dr. Steve Gadaprow [63:12]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Hollywood’s Lost Audience:

  • “Nobody really respects these movies. Nobody really wants to watch them. We've come to a point where Hollywood people were desperate to find something to vote for...” – Titus Tekkeira [14:24]

• Why Comedy is Dead:

  • “Every romantic comedy you’d have now is actually an HR comedy...Everything that is provocative, risky, thrilling...these are HR infractions.” – Titus Tekkeira [24:34]

• On the Founders and Immigration:

  • “We ought to...give preference to the people who compose this country...to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and for our posterity.” – Dr. Kevin Porteous [05:38]

• The Oscars’ Collapse:

  • “The Oscars is very much in danger of becoming the Tonys...for a very small group of people...” – Scott Bertram [16:35]

• On Cosmopolitanism’s American Tension:

  • “The idea of America first...is the very antithesis of this global citizenship ethos.” – Dr. Steve Gadaprow [63:12]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• H1B Visas & Immigration Policy: [00:42–10:43]
• The Crisis of the Oscars & Hollywood: [13:18–19:48]
• Streaming vs. Theatrical Experience: [19:48–23:18]
• Death of Comedy & Cultural Risk Aversion: [23:18–28:45]
• Opportunities for Conservatives in Film: [28:45–32:36]
• Remembering Gene Hackman & the Meaning of Modern Male Stardom: [32:36–36:36]
• Global Justice Theory Introduction: [38:28–45:09]
• Rawls & the Shift to Global Equality: [45:09–50:44]
• Cosmopolitanism & American Policy: [58:12–63:37]

---

Tone and Style

The discussions are frank, intellectually rigorous, and unsparing—marked by a certain nostalgic sadness for lost cultural common ground (cinema, comedy, local community), but with a pragmatic hopefulness about new opportunities outside the old establishment (Hollywood, federal immigration paradigms, global justice debates). The tone is occasionally wry and always seriously engaged with the implications of culture and policy on the American project.

---

This episode offers a must-listen examination for anyone interested in America's evolving self-understanding: in immigration and nationhood, in the soul of its popular culture, and in the way global, cosmopolitan ethics increasingly challenge traditional civic allegiances.

Transcript

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Foreign 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.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Nobody really respects these movies. Nobody really wants to watch them. We've come to a point where Hollywood people were desperate to find something to vote for and they were just running through a list of objections. Some were credible, some were ridiculous, all of them incredibly self defeating.

[Scott Bertram]

This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. That was Titus Tekkeira, executive director of the American Cinema Foundation. A little bit later on in today's program, we talk with Titus in depth about the state of the film industry and some remembrances about the late actor Gene Hackman. First, we're joined by Dr. Kevin Porteous. He is professor of politics and director of American Studies at Hillsdale College. Dr. Porteus, thanks for joining us. Good to be here talking today about a piece you recently wrote [e-mail] Putting America first on the topic of our immigration policy and specifically the recent conversation about H1B visas. Let's start by defining what that is. What are H1B visas and how do they compare to other visa types the country offers?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

So the H1 visa was initially created by the Immigration Nationality act of 1952, and then it was split into the H1A and H1B visa programs. And the H1A program is defunct. But the H1B program, which was split off around 1990, was about allowing employers to bring in skilled workers to fill particular roles within their organizations which they claimed were unable, they were unable to fill from among native employees. And so the companies will certify that they have attempted to find workers to fill these positions, that they were unable to do so, and then they are requesting that this person from outside the United States be allowed to enter under this visa to work in this role.

[Scott Bertram]

Generally. Are there specific industries that use these more than others or what types of jobs are these generally used for?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

So these are skilled workers and overwhelmingly the data shows that they are in technology related industries and within that, overwhelmingly in computer related fields. For the most recent year that we have data available, approximately 65% of all H1B visas are for workers in computer related fields.

[Scott Bertram]

And do we know what countries these H1B visas generally come from?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Overwhelmingly from two countries. Again, in the most recent year for which we have data available, which is 20, 23, 73% of these workers come from 12% from China, and then no other country represents more than 2%. So 85% of these workers come from India and China.

[Scott Bertram]

Is there evidence of a persistent shortage of native born Americans to fill these skilled technical positions that the H1B program is designed to address?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Well, I think the record on that is at best decidedly mixed. We have a number of instances that we know of. Companies like Disney, meta, AT&T have gotten themselves in some trouble, at least in some scandal, for their abuse of the program. Disney, for instance, they got themselves in trouble because they fired American workers who are already occupying those roles, imported people under the H1B program, and then demanded that the outgoing American workers train their own replacements. So there's no way that there was a shortfall here because the positions were already filled. It's just that they wanted to employ someone whom they could pay less money. So they got rid of the American and brought in the immigrant worker.

[Scott Bertram]

How would you recommend we evaluate the value and the merits of a program like this?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

I think that you have to evaluate any program according to the general purpose of government. I mean, America's founding fathers understand the purpose of government as being to secure the inalienable rights of the citizens of that country. In other words, so what serves the interest of the nation and its citizens, and is it in the interest of the United States or its citizens to have American workers who are available and qualified to do these jobs being pushed out of the way for people who are being brought in under these visa programs?

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Dr. Kevin Porteous, professor of politics, Director of American Studies here at Hillsdale College, as we go a little deeper into the question you write in this [e-mail] about the Universal and particular principle principles and the founding regarding citizenship, what is that balance of universal and particular principles?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Well, I mean, I think on the one hand, we are a country that is founded on a set of principles regarding justice. And those principles we claim are universal. On the other hand, we, that is to say, the citizens of the United States collectively are a particular people. In other words, we're not an abstraction. And the people of this country are not simply economic units, right? They're human beings. They have souls, they have interests, they have families. And so we ought to, while being faithful to those principles, we ought to also have regard for and give preference to the people who compose this country, the people who constituted it, in order to, as the Constitution says, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and for our posterity. So that we ought to be concerned with promoting the interests of the particular people who make up this country.

[Scott Bertram]

If we look back to the Founding and the Founders, what parameters do the Founders envision for regulating immigration into the U.S. well, I think if you look.

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

At it as a historical matter, there's in a lot of ways not a ton of evidence that we can draw on, which is to say they did not impose substantial limitations on immigration. And I think the reason that this is the case is that circumstances dictated that they really didn't need to. The difficulty of making the trip and the cost, the risk, the finality of crossing the ocean meant that immigration was in a way checked. And then in the first 25 years of government under the Constitution, immigration was further restricted by the realities of the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic wars, which, which substantially interdicted commercial traffic between Europe and the United States. So there really wasn't a lot that they had to do in order to keep immigration under control in those periods. It just simply is a historical matter.

[Scott Bertram]

You alluded to earlier, the problems, the issues Disney had and other companies had in terms of importing what is essentially cheaper foreign labor to do those jobs. Has Congress attempted to regulate similar concerns on that topic?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Throughout our history, yes, at various times we've had different immigration policies, really beginning in the early part of the 20th century and not so much on the basis of labor and particular aspects of the labor force, at least until recently, as much as the countries being overrun, people eventually concluded in the early 20th century by people who don't necessarily understand or appreciate our way of life. Life. And that concern goes all the way back to the founding, which is to say that we're not obligated to allow people to come into the country to the point where the country is transformed. And that's a problem that we run into, I think, a lot today where we have this kind of unwillingness to say. And I think given our politics today, if you say, look, it's really bad that the culture of our country is being transformed, you're some somehow racist. When in fact I think that for people that are paying attention, even the places that look like us aren't really like us. Other Western nations aren't necessarily Western or aren't necessarily American in terms of their understanding for or appreciation of our culture of limited government and individual natural rights and so on.

[Scott Bertram]

One of the reasons we're talking about this is there has been some back and forth on the topic recently. What route should Congress and the President pursue to find an American first kind of labor immigration policy?

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Yeah, I think you really have to emphasize that the whole point of this operation, that is to say, of the United States writ large, is to secure again the blessings of liberty, but also the greatest possibility of a decent and dignified life and work for average people. And this goes way beyond immigration policy. Right. It's a comprehensive approach. We have to have, for instance, a trade or an industrial policy that does this, that doesn't allow communities like this one here in Hillsdale to be hollowed out by policies that are not conducive to the prosperity of ordinary Americans.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Kevin Porteous, professor of politics and director of American Studies at Hillsdale College. His [e-mail], putting America First. Dr. Porteus, thanks for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

Thank you so much.

[Scott Bertram]

Up next, Titus Tekkera, executive director of the American Cinema Foundation. We talk about the state of the film industry. I'm Scott Bertram. This this is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. On the new episode of the Larry Arn Show, Hillsdale College President Larry P. Arn sits down with pastor, professor and authority Kevin DeYoung for a one on one conversation.

[Larry P. Arnn]

A lot of political theory has to start, you know, as a Christian with Jesus saying, give me the coin whose face is on Caesar's render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God's the things that are God's. Well, that gives some kind of, to use our language, separation of churches. It says that it's not identical and it says not just that you need to give taxes to Caesar because Caesar has a certain realm, but in saying render to God the things that are Gods, it says Caesar doesn't have doesn't have everything. Caesar doesn't have control over your life.

[Scott Bertram]

Listen to this exclusive interview with Kevin DeYoung right now, only available on the Larry Arn Show. Find it on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at Podcast Hillsdale Eduardo also at Apple podcasts Spotify and YouTube and subscribe to receive new episodes delivered right to your device. That's podcast hillsdale.edu.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Great books, great people, great ideas. Learning about these things is critical to being a well educated human being. And we can help with the Hillsdale Dialogues. Each week, Hillsdale College President Larry Arne joins radio veteran Hugh Hewitt to discuss topics of enduring relevance. And from time to time, they also talk about current events, but always with an eye toward more fundamental truths. And they want you to tune in to a conversation like no other. The Hillsdale Dialogues are posted every Monday on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at podcast Hillsdale Edu. That's podcast Hillsdale. Or listen via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you find your audio.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to check us out on X. Follow Hillsdale Radio for show and guest information. We're joined by Titus. He is executive director of the American Cinema Foundation. You can find him on Xitus Film. That's T I T U S film. He's on campus for one of our CCA lecture series here on Hillsdale College's campus. Titus, thanks so much for joining us.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Thanks so much for invitation, Scott. It's good to be back.

[Scott Bertram]

Always a pleasure to talk cinema and film with you. We talk a little bit after this year's Academy Awards. The Oscars were handed out and I think for many Americans and perhaps a majority of our listeners, they have no idea what happened at the Oscars. Meaning they don't know the films, they don't know some of the actors and it's not the first time in recent history that this has happened. So what do you think that says about the industry right now, where the film industry, the movie industry stands right now in the eyes of the American public? Perhaps?

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, I think if you start with that, Where's Hollywood? Where's America? What happened at the Oscars is the result of 2024 movies and that is the result of quite a bit of calculation, quite a bit of financing, quite a bit of development and so much work by so many people in the crews to make these movies. And then on the other hand, American people also made their voices spoken much more loudly in the elections in 2024. And now we get to tally up what's happened after the inauguration, after the Oscars. Where's America? Where's Hollywood? It's catastrophic. What a great distance this is. There has never been something quite like this. Nobody really respects these movies. Nobody really wants to watch them. We've come to a point where Hollywood people were desperate to find something to vote for and they were just running through a list of objections. Some were credible, some were ridiculous. All of them incredibly self defeating. Until it ended up with this something that's not quite a rom com, maybe a kind of coming of age story about what we could call a lady of negotiable affection who goes around with a Russian gangster and then the Russian gangster's kid and there's this other enforcer. Then there are really Todd really sorted unhelpful stuff and weirdly badly made. You look at that stuff and you can just Say, this is weirdly too long. This is not looking at things right. The, the composition is bad. Why are these people moving this way? And so it sort of becomes jarring. And this is not what you'd. This is what you expect out of kids who are having fun with their iPhones trying something out. It's not what you expect from a best picture movie. And you can tell immediately, okay, I get why nobody want to see this movie. Whatever kind of person you are, turns out they sort of got the exact spot where nobody is. This is a big country. And so, you know, you can't sell these movies. You can't get people to watch them. You can't get the Oscar to get them a new lease on life, a new interest. And so theaters are dying as well. Everybody's hurting everybody else.

[Scott Bertram]

So when I was growing up, you had the Oscars, which everybody watched, and it was fun and people saw the films and you fought about who was going to win because you saw all the films. You could have opinions. The Grammys, which again, everybody watched, everyone heard the music. You could find about things. And then there were the Tonys. And I remember as a kid saying, what is this and why would I be interested? And I'd never seen these things or these people and what are they even honoring? And then I, you know, it's Broadway and theater. And my feeling now is that the Oscars is very much in danger of becoming the Tonys, which for a majority of the country, it's not for them. It's for a very small group of people who actually have seen these films and perhaps could have opinions, can fight about who's best, but for millions of people, it means nothing to them whatsoever.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, you know, this is crazy. We used to worry about this problem in the industry in terms of the Spirit Awards. It's kind of twee, kind of interesting. But only a few insiders even care about that stuff. To see that happen to the Oscars, it's sort of like we're quarreling about why the annual conference of pediatricians wasn't a bigger hit. It's just a trade in fair. It's just the industry looking at itself. But this used to be the self understanding of America. This used to be the things we hope for and the things that scare us. This used to be redrawing from our resources, remembering and reinterpreting the national memory. Right. Cinema did all of these things for us. It also was socialization, as we horribly say. But it just used to mean a night at the movies is a Lot of fun. You go out with your friends, maybe you take a girl out. There are also, you know, matinees, strangely enough, you end up remembering those things fondly. Took the kids out and they were having so much fun and they thought, you can be a little wild here. It's just, you know, bursts of laughter. And who knew matinee could be fun? Well, you had all of these sorts of opportunities and now we're strangely nostalgic about this stuff. You know, national house arrest with COVID that did not help. Liberal hysteria about COVID That did not help. It's an industry that's hurting itself. And then they react to that by also turning the awards into, so to speak, the most un American spectacle you can imagine. The thing is, there were not, you know, clearly these people were trying their hardest organizationally to not offend America. So they brought in Conan o', Brien, who's fairly inoffensive, liberal and really funny, sharp guy, very personable. They avoided political statements for the most part. There were no really annoying, jarring, sanctimonious moments. But there was instead this sort of emptiness. What do you have to say to people? What should they be hearing? Is there any connection left between the storytelling, the glamour industry, the fashions? All of these things that charm, of course, especially women, but the rest of us get to hear about it also, one way or another. And yet it looks like it finally snapped.

[Scott Bertram]

Titu's Tekkeba is with us. He is executive director of the American Cinema foundation, who talk a bit about the current state of the movie movie industry. Something that I don't want to say bothers me, but it certainly has an effect. You talk about the experience of going out to the movies and bringing a family or bringing a girlfriend, and it's a night out. It's an experience. So what has happened more often these days to me is I will see a trailer, I will see a preview of a film and think, oh, that might be a fun thing to do. I will go to the theater and see this film. And then at the end it says only on Netflix or whatever streaming service it is. And I'm so disappointed a because I don't have Netflix. But no matter, even if I had Netflix, it's a completely different experience. Something that I should love and sort of have this unique experience with is available the same way I watch 25 year old reruns of Friends or whatever it is. Right. What has the industry done to itself in sort of revolution, classifying the way it distributes their films?

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, I think this was a major catastrophe. That, again, Covid was part of it. But also the way in which studios rented their properties out to Netflix and so forth, everybody looked down on them. They really did not take seriously the fact that Americans, A, are kind of in love with technology. It's part of the national love affair. And B, Americans would like more comfort. You'd have to show me that the movie theater is nice. You'd have to show me that getting in the crowd there with people, you start feeling a little excited. We're in this together. If that's not on the table, what am I doing here?

[Scott Bertram]

Yeah.

[Titus Tekkeira]

And then, you know, driving, parking. What do you do with the kids? Or can you scrounge up a group of people if everybody has slightly weird schedules that they're doing this? Oh, you know, it becomes a drama to schedule something. And then the movie theaters are get hit worse and worse. And conflicts between the studios and the theaters have never really worked out. And so who won out? Netflix won out to some extent. Amazon won out these sorts of streaming services that killed cinema and replaced it with, indeed, the couch, replaced it with the family room, the living room, replaced it with a big screen, which is largely commandeered by kids who have gaming consoles or something like that. Or, you know. You know what they do. This is what my nephews do, is what their friends do. They watch YouTube on the TV, massive screen. But now it's YouTube. And so it really is the case that the uniqueness of the experience has been wiped out, that a kind of relationship between the stars and the audience has been wiped out. And therefore the ability of artists to say, I'll put her in that picture and everybody will get it. I'll show you that guy in his drama, and you'll think, he's my guy. You no longer have bargaining trips as an artist. You can't say, I will be making stars. Behind every American star, there's a director or two. John Ford made John Wayne. America loves John Wayne a lot more than John Ford, and that's fine as an artist also, in a way, you need the distance. I want them to love John Wayne, not me. I need to look at things from a certain distance. I need a certain degree of independence. But if it's not possible to connect the audience to the story, and it's not possible, therefore, to connect them to a star, what are we even doing here? And America ran out of stars.

[Scott Bertram]

Titu's Tekira with us from the American Cinema Foundation. Titus. What happened to the great Hollywood comedies Why aren't we making funny films anymore? Do we not want to see them? Does the public not want to go see them? Are the studios scared of offending people with jokes? Are there not great American comedians writing that anymore? What happened? They just don't. Hollywood does not make great comedies and hasn't for probably a decade at this point.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, I think the last Hollywood comedy I thought was just lovely was Hail Caesar, the Coen Brothers Movie about 50s Hollywood, modern America, revisiting the story on the premise that it's over. We're making a movie about the movies because the movies are over. And I thought they get it and I get it. It's breaking our hearts a little, but what can you do? And something a little like that is true of comedy and romantic comedy especially these genres depended on a certain love of life, on a certain fun that Americans used to have still into the 80s and 90s. And that meant to some extent thinking about why we chase after women, why we make fools of ourselves, and why do the women laugh at us? But also it forced women to be in a situation where they ask themselves, what do they like? What are they picking? What are they saying yes or no to? And so, you know, the self knowledge of the country, apart from politics, apart from American democracy, apart from global issues, more on this personal level, social level. What about your town annoys you? Where in town do you want to go? Because it's fun. All these kinds of things were magnified on screen and everybody could say, okay, I kind of see what my heart is beating for. And gradually in the 90s, these things disappeared. Partly it was obviously ideological feminism and then a kind of reflexive anger against all things male that ended up with toxic masculinity. But partly it was kind of reality that we now have a new country, people where they meet, they'd meet at work. But work is increasingly an HR thing. Every romantic comedy you'd have now is actually an HR comedy. And you know, you're either burning down the HR in your satire or actually the HR will have you fired. Everything that is provocative, risky, thrilling, everything that makes you linger on a person, somebody that comes back to you, somebody you might dream of. These are HR infractions. And that seems to have killed the kind of the Tom Sawyer American, somewhat puckish, mischievous by hook or by crook, he'll get her attention. The sorts of things that made Americans be first guessers. The girl can second guess you, or you can second guess yourself, or your friends will kid you, but you know, you should try. And so that posture. The boy in America learns to be active, you know, after school. It's his life, you know, it's the people he's fond of. That stuff has really been taken out of American life. It really has been replaced to such an extent with, you know, every step of success, every extracurricular, everything that your parents, I guess, usually your mom has to drive you to all of these kinds of things that people do out of the best intentions. You know, it's not easy out there. Your kids have to do even more education, even more activities, more and more to prove themselves that they're going to be able to achieve something else further on. By the time you're done achieving all that, there might not be that much left of spontaneity, of joy, of being surprised by what you like. And maybe it has become very, very hard. You know, people are. I make fun of young people all the time because they're so touchy. And maybe that irritability has to be, you know, annoyed a little before they can get over it. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? But the point of it is that to have comedy, it is necessary for you to be able to laugh. And to be able to laugh is to say to yourself, I sort of didn't see that coming. There's something that surprised me. And that means that also there's something telling about me. I told on myself laughing. I lost control. I suddenly I realized who I am. I wasn't quite sure, you know, five seconds before. Yes, the experience that there's something about you that's telling. It's not under your control. It's not the way you present yourself. It's not your social media profile, in a way. It's not even what your friends think of you or how they grab you, so to speak, how they think of you, you know, your friendships. Instead, it's something that the moment reveals about. You immediately confront being human with all your desires and your incompleteness. And obviously that can be painful stuff. It's not easy to manage. And that has been almost entirely ideologically driven out of experience. Kids talk about themselves in the third person. Kids talk about their experience in terms of what some kind of analysis, some therapeutic concept is supposed to tell them. Where are you? You're not right here right now. I feel like you have to smack somebody upside the head to realize, like, hello, we're here. We are live, you know.

[Scott Bertram]

Titus Tekkeira with us from the American Cinema Foundation. What kind of opportunities perhaps, are there for conservatives in film? Is there an opportunity to Once again allow Americans to see themselves reflected in this art.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, I think there's quite a bit because over the last couple of decades now, a lot production has moved into red America. Sort of like America, you know, up to the big picture about electoral votes. Millions and millions of Americans are moving into red America. The heartland is winning, the liberal coastlines are losing. And so part of that has also been movie production. Texas to Georgia, all sorts of opportunities. And all of this was brought home to me vividly because a month or so back I saw an ad, a pastiche of the true detective series with the actors Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson. But in the back you have Billy Bob Thornton also. And they're talking about moving production to Texas. You don't have to put up with Hollywood anymore. So many people are moving to Austin. So many things can be done in Texas. But also as I was saying, Georgia and other places you can do production. And that has built crews, that has built, know how it has built facilities, businesses. And it has finally allowed conservatives to move out of the position of consumer into that of producer. This is what's wrong with us. We are in the, we have a consumer mentality. The best we can think of is give a bad review but not take things up. Nobody thinks, you know, pay somebody to teach 18 year old kids in college to start with an iPhone or maybe something with a better camera actually and start filming, start editing. These people are obsessed with social media, which has become video media, image media, show them how to use it, they're going to be obsessed with it anyway, but give them some critical distance, give them some skills and hopefully in that distance they become self aware and you know, they don't lose it. They don't start believing in the identities they're putting on. Let them be a little better at showmanship and hopefully they'll be less, you know, the actor. So paying for these things, encouraging these things, it's a very, very difficult thing. And as I said, I've led the ACF for a long time and I inherited because at the bottom of the Obama years, it was just crushing conservatives, Republicans, even just reasonable people in Hollywood. And we decided to go digital into the digital wilderness and try our luck there. And it has been much more rewarding, much more successful. The interest conservatives have in culture, in recuperating the national memory, in discovering things. Look, I was told this is wonderful, but you know, I don't really know. And then they say, wow, okay, I get it, I want more of this. Or they remember Something they saw a long time ago. And you know, I love whenever people say, this is my favorite movie, nine times out of ten, you can tell that they haven't seen it. But once or twice, somehow the impulse revisited. Fall in love again, so to speak. That's available now. That's the advantage we get of digital technologies, but we have to begin to make use of it. And this sort of thing, as I was saying about McConaughey and Harrelson and Bill Bob Thornton in Texas, all of these things like Trump saying, why not get these veteran Republicans like Stallone or Mel Gibson or Joan Voight. Maybe they have the right ideas. Maybe they know people. And I bet you there will be lots and lots of people, more or less talented, more or less experienced, who thinks, think, maybe this is my chance in America. Maybe you get your chance. You know, just try. So all of these things are opportunities for people to be less on the consumer side, more on the producer side. Try your hand at things. Try your luck at things.

[Scott Bertram]

One final question. You and I have had conversations previously about Clinta Eastwood. We've talked about Dirty Harry, we've talked about Bruce Willis. Very recently, Gene Hackman passed away. And I'm just wondering maybe somewhat briefly, where you would place Gene Hackman on that American male actor spectrum.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Yeah, I love Gene Hackman. Let me start with recommending some things. First of all, the conversation. Francis Ford Coppola, 1974. He made this when he was also making Godfather part 2. Coppola 70 is amazing. Started with the screenplay for Pat and ended with Apocalypse Now. Wow. But Gene Hackman, in that great decade of these impressive stories, is the guy that gives you a vision of America suffering. It's not these grandiose, maybe epic, we would say, stories. It's something much more about middle class life, about the loneliness of the 70s, the misery of the cities. A man who suffers the agony of America, whose heart is breaking and who has become, in a way, corrupted. It's not easy to watch, but you see the humanity of him in his suffering. And that was a quality that Hackman brought to his otherwise, you know, strong frame, manly guy, the balding hair and that strong mustache. As you know, this is a guy.

[Scott Bertram]

Yeah.

[Titus Tekkeira]

And so. And the other movie I would recommend is one of his latest and maybe the other great one, which I guess is going to surprise everybody who knows him. It's called Heist. It's from around 2000. It's a heist movie, like the name says, but it's by David Mammoth. And so it's very fast, very clever. There are so many turns in the plot that you're gonna see twice or three times. And you get all of these hilarious roles, like, Danny DeVito is a gangster. But in that case, you see Gene Hackman in his golden days. He has a kind of wit, he has a kind of wisdom. He's a mastermind. Once you know that, you see that in the wrinkles around his eyes, his knowing smile. He really plays that up and he's like, what if this guy really could think five steps ahead? And so it's actually very enjoyable because the character is so reassuring. But still, this notion that the working class man, the professional, is in danger, that somebody or else will corrupt him, that things are not to be taken for granted. The old American compact, Frank Capra's America, maybe mid century successful America, brother. It's much harder out there now. So it's sort of a memory. This is what we long for. This is maybe what dad had for us. It's so much harsher. And so Gene Hackman brought these two qualities together. He came literally, of course, out of that older America, you know, much more confident, healthier, stronger, just better character, actually. But also he showed what's interesting in this newer America. Granted, a lot of suffering people lose themselves, but it does make them interesting. You see human drama, longings that otherwise would not really be there. Facing up to our hopes and difficulties, the stuff you've lost and how do you have to manage things to just deal with it? As we say, that shows, okay, that's maturity. That's a man. That's somebody that could inspire, maybe even in certain ways, guide you. Think about that guy, that man, he faced up to these things, couldn't take things for granted, never let go. You know, I think that's a very American quality. And I think that's why people, especially in the 90s, realized that, you know, it wasn't just Popeye Doyle, it was just the French Connection or things like that. They always loved Gene Hackman. Finally, you can see it in his golden days.

[Scott Bertram]

Yeah. Titus Tekkera is executive director of the American Cinema foundation, and you can find him on Xetousfilm T I T U S film. Titus, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Thanks so much for having us, guys.

[Scott Bertram]

Up next, we talk with Dr. Steve Ghataprow, recent graduate from the Hillsdale College graduate School of Statesmanship. He'll introduce us to global justice theory. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[G]

This show is a part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. If you like what what you hear, please subscribe to your favorite. You'll get brand new episodes of all your favorite shows sent right to your device and you'll help us know that you're out there listening. Never miss another episode by going to Podcast Hillsdale. Edu subscribe. That's Podcast Hillsdale. Edu subscribe or or click the Follow or Subscribe button on Apple podcasts, Spotify or YouTube.

[Hugh Hewitt]

Great books, great people, great ideas. Learning about these things is critical to being a well educated human being and we can help with the Hillsdale Dialogues. Each week, Hillsdale College President Larry Arne joins radio veteran Hugh Hewitt to discuss topics of enduring relevance. And from time to time, they also talk about current events, but always with an eye toward more fundamental truths. And they want you to tune in to a conversation like no other. The Hillsdale Dialogues are posted every Monday on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at podcast hillsdale.edu. that's podcast hillsdale. Edu or listen via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you find your audio.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to check out the Hillsdale College Podcast Network for older episodes of this show plus all of Hillsdale College's audio. Find it at Podcast Hillsdale. Edu or wherever you get your podcasts. We're joined now by Dr. Steve Ganapra. He's a recent graduate of Hillsdale College's Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship. Dr. Ganaprao, thanks so much for joining us.

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Thanks for having me on, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

Appreciate it. Today we talk a little bit about your dissertation, which was on the topic of An Introduction to Global Justice Theory. How would you say that this work, your work is different from other works that have been done on on global justice theory? What gap does it try to fill in the scholarship?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Right. Very briefly, before I answer that question, let me just explain to the viewers out there what global justice theory is. So when we talk about global justice theory, all we mean by that is moral theorizing about the the principles that should regulate interstate conduct and even more than that, the principles that should regulate both the structure and the practices of international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization, the imf, the World bank, and so forth. So that's what we mean by global justice. What moral principles should should should guide both international organizations and relations between states. How does my project fit into this topic? Over the past 30 years or so, Western political theorists have become increasingly preoccupied with this question of global justice. Literally thousands of articles and books have been published on the subject. Here's where I come in. Almost all of these books and articles are written by thinkers who are active in these debates, who are at the ground level formulating their theories and advocating them. And so what I tried to do with my dissertation is provide the reader with an aerial view of the field and dispassionate commentary on its major players. I tried to trace the origins, excuse me, the origins and development of global justice theory. So the whole point of the project was to put together a work that someone with no knowledge of global justice theory could read. And afterwards, at least, the hope is that someone could say, aha. I kind of understand what these global justice theorists are up to.

[Scott Bertram]

What should we understand as the goal of the global justice project?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Yeah, that's a great question, Scott. Again, before I answer that, that, let me first explain what the global justice theorists are opposed to. So in their view, we need to move beyond the old moral framework for international relations. What was called the law of nations that was enshrined in international law sometime after the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The basic teaching of the law of nations, and it was developed by enlightenment thinkers like Christian Wolf and Vattel, was that all states, large and small, have a right to independence, have a right to liberty, and therefore other states have a duty to respect that independence, to respect that sovereignty. So the idea is all states are equal, equally sovereign, and therefore no state has a right to intervene in its internal affairs. Now, this is precisely the problem for global justice theorists, in their view that what's called the non intervention principle demands far too much toleration in international relations. They ask, why should we be required to sit idly by as some foreign dictator brutally mistreats his people? So one of the reasons why we need to move beyond the law of nations, in their view, is that it fails to capture an appropriate moral concern for victims of state sanctioned oppression. The other problem with the law of nations view of international relations is that there is no principle of international wealth redistribution. Someone like Vattel might say, if, if a foreign country is dealing with a famine out of love, out of charity, you should ship food to them, provided that you have enough to spare. But something like the idea that America has a duty to transfer 5% of its GDP to a country in the third world, for example, the law of nations thinkers didn't go for that. So in the view of the global justice theorists, it's time for us to work on a new theory of international relations. Now, you asked me what they're for. What's the thrust behind this project? I argue in the dissertation that at its core, the global justice project is an attempt to establish a more egalitarian world order. It's an attempt. Attempt to move towards a world where one's nationality no longer plays such a decisive role in what they can do and in what they can be. So, for example, the global justice theorist Darrell Moellendorf suggests that we'll only have global justice on that day when a child in Mozambique is as statistically as likely to become an investment banker as a child that's born to a Swiss banker. So the idea is one's nationality, which no one can be said to deserve. You're just, you happen to be born into a place, plays a such a large role in how our lives go, and we want to mitigate that, that we want people's choices to matter more in terms of their success in life and arbitrary things like what country you happen to be born in, they want that to matter less.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Steve Gadipra with us, talking about his dissertation, An Introduction to Global Justice Theory. In the dissertation, a name that is frequently cited, is John Rawls. His work A Theory of Justice. And in what ways does that serve as a catalyst for global justice theory?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Right. So for viewers at home who might not be familiar with Rawls, he's widely regarded in academia as the most influential Western political philosopher of the late 20th century, and his magnum opus is A Theory of justice, which he publishes in 1971. For readers who are more familiar with Rawls, they might find it to be somewhat of a paradoxical statement that Rawls is the point of departure for global justice theory, because, after all, he was primarily interested in what we call domestic justice, justice within the nation state. So I'll explain why that is, that we can trace the origins of global justice theory back to Rawls. So it's a very dense book. Much of it's very technical, and I won't be able to cover his whole theory. But at its core, Rawls is trying to deal with what he deems to be a problem that's endemic to all political societies, the problem of unequal starting positions in society. He thinks it should violate our sense of fairness that some are far better suited to realize their aspirations in this world world because of factors beyond their control. To give you a concrete example of this, we're here talking in the state of Michigan. Think of two kids who are similar in their talents, similar in their drive, and one is Born to two well to do professionals in the Ann Arbor area and attends a great boarding school, whereas the other is born in the slums of Detroit to a single mother and attends a failing school.

[Dr. Kevin Porteous]

School.

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Rawls thinks again that we should think that this outcome is unfair, that one's far better suited to succeed over another simply because he was born into a lucky situation. So what Rawls tries to do in a theory of justice is formulate a theory that tries to mitigate the effects that these so called arbitrary factors have over our lives. So I'll just briefly talk about two of the principles that he advocates in A Theory of justice to try to give viewers at home a sense of what Rawls is up to. So he says that there should be two principles to regulate the economic system within a nation state. One of them he calls the fair equality of opportunity principle. And it states that two individuals of similar talent, of similar drive have the same prospect of success regardless of their initial starting position in society. So this will require things like a progressive income tax, government monies being funneled to underfunded schools. It would require the prevention of excessive accumulations of wealth in the society. So we want to create truly a society where we have equality of opportunity. But Rawls says that doesn't quite go far enough, because even if we got there, the distribution of wealth in society would largely be determined by who has natural talent and who doesn't. And Rawls thinks it's entirely arbitrary for something like talents, which no one can be said to deserve. You're just born with them to determine the distribution of wealth in society. So to correct for this, he advocates his famous difference principle, which states that any economic inequality, any wealth inequality that persists in society can only be justified if it's in the interest of the least advantaged. So he says, look, we don't want to narrow income inequality past a certain point because you need incentives in place for people to innovate and expand the economy. And when that happens over time, it's actually to the benefit of the least advantage because the wealth trickles down. So for him, it'd be an empirical question, it'd be a question for economists how this difference principle would operate in practice. Now, the reason why Rawls is so important to global justice theory is because global justice thinkers were very much attracted by Rawls's idea. Again, his fundamental idea that we should try to create the society where an individual's choices, their character, matters more to their success. And arbitrary things like what home you grew up in, what school you went to what your natural talents are that should matter less in determining your life prospects.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Dr. Stephen Ganaprao about global justice theory, these global justice thinkers who liked what Rawls was saying, how did they respond?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

What they essentially said in reply to Rawls is, look, we really like your theory of justice, but we don't think it should be restricted to the nation state. Now, one last piece of information I've withheld until now is that Rawls, in Rawls view, nation states were more or less closed schemes of cooperation. That's the term he used. And these schemes of cooperation produce benefits, they produce burdens. And in his view, we need what he called social justice to determine the just distribution of benefits and burdens within a particular nation state or a particular scheme of cooperation, to use his term, term. And so to paint the full picture here, what happens by the 1970s. So at the time that Rawls is working on his ideas and a theory of justice is that academics and also very important foreign policy practitioners in America are starting to understand international relations differently. The slogan that was used to capture this feeling that that international relations was undergoing profound change was the term interdependence. There was. Economists made arguments for interdependence. Their idea was that with increased economic integration between the United States, Western Europe and Japan, it had created a situation where policies that used to be effective on the national level, such as raising interest rates to stifle inflation, that those policies were no longer effective in an interdependent world. In addition to the economists, you had another strand of interdependence theorists who were stressing ecology, who were stressing the environment, pollution. There was a great concern that our natural resources around the world were depleting to unhealthy levels. And so they advocated what I call a planetary interdependence that was less focused on the economics. But for all the different variations of interdependence, there are. The conclusion of all these thinkers was the same, and that was nation states are no longer able to independently achieve their objectives in an interdependent world. What was needed above all else, above all else, is transnational policy coordination. And guys like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, they all adhere to this line of things thinking. And so when Rawls to bring to circle back to Rawls, when Rawls is saying in the. In a theory of justice in 1971 that nation states are these closed systems of cooperation, what the global justice theorists say in response to him is, hold on a second, Rawls, we live in an interdependent world. Now, it is totally arbitrary and illogical for you to restrict your teaching on what was called distributive justice to the nation state. It should actually apply to the world at large.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Dr. Steve Gadiprau about his dissertation and introduction to global justice theory. How did the collapse of the Soviet Union and then the advent of globalization help to shape the trajectory of global justice theory now in the 1990s?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Okay, so in the late 70s, before we get to the 90s, I should just briefly mention that Charles Bites really produces the first big work on global justice theory in 1979. It's a book called Political Theory and International Relations. And he more or less argues that. That we live in this interdependent world now, and Rawls's theory is really great, and it's time to globalize it. It's time to globalize Rawls's teaching. And in the 80s, there's a little uptick among scholars as it relates to global justice theory, but the field absolutely explodes once the Berlin Wall falls. Now, why did that happen? Well, I argue in my dissertation that it happened for two reasons. First and foremost, the end of the Cold War ushered in the spirit of unbridled optimism in the West. This was famously captured in a essay by Francis Fukuyama called the End of History. And he argued there that all other ideological systems were exhausted, had been defeated by liberal democracy, and that over time, the world was going to converge on liberal democracy and free markets, that the all too common hostilities between great powers in the past would be replaced by what he called the common marketization of international relations. And so this idea of the end of history had a powerful pull on global justice theorists. And I think that theorists more generally in the west turn their attention to global justice, turn their attention to theorizing about international relations, because they now had this optimism that we can expect a lot more from international relations. We don't have to be worried about detente or strategic arms treaties. We can inject our foreign policy with a more robust morality. In addition, around the time the Berlin Wall falls, you have all of these countries transitioning to economic openness in Latin America, in India, in Southeast Asia. The Chinese market begins to open in the. In the 1980s. And so global justice theorists are looking at these economic trends in the early 90s after the cold War ends, and they're saying we have what they called we have economic globalization.

[Titus Tekkeira]

Now.

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

The world's becoming more interconnected. There's all this capital, there's all these People, there's goods, there's ideas that are flowing across borders with incredible rapidity. And what we need now is a global ethic to undergird this economic globalization.

[Scott Bertram]

So why does all of this matter now? How can the ideas, the debates that you've discussed and studied inside your dissertation about global justice, how can they influence American politics and policies today?

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Right. So to answer that, I'll just say that in the post Cold War era, the vast majority of global justice theorists describe themselves as cosmopolitans. Now, they don't agree on everything. In fact, they intensely quarrel over things like should we be moving towards a world state? What are our duties to other nations? So there's all these debates. But one thing they do agree on is that at the core of cosmopolitanism is this idea that every human being on this earth is a subject, is equally a subject of moral concern. Now, how do we manifest this equal concern for others, regardless of where they're located on earth? Well, what the cosmopolitans say is this. This. They, in their view, anytime we make a decision that could potentially affect a broad range of people, we need to equally weight the claims of all who are affected. So to give you a practical example of this, immigration is a very hot topic in the, in the United States right now, obviously. So in the view of a cosmopolitan, in the view of a cosmopolitan, a national leader, when he's thinking about immigration policy, would have to equally consider the claims of those who want to enter into America and the claims of US Citizens. So on the one hand, a US Citizen might say, I'm afraid that immigrants are going to undercut my wages, or I'm afraid that that unbridled immigration will erode social cohesion. So the American has some. Some claims. But immigrant from a country like Mexico also has claims. I live in penury. There's very little economic opportunity where I live. If I move to America, it will, it will greatly expand my opportunities in life. And the implication for the cosmopolitans is that the would be immigrant to America has a much more urgent claim than that of the American citizen. And so what cosmopolitans are saying is you can't prioritize the claims or the interests of your own people. You need to equally rank them with the claims of others. And the more urgent claim for the cosmopolitan should win out. So how does this connect to practical politics today? I would argue that this cosmopolitan moral orientation has affected United States policy, and I think it's been exhibited by some of our national leaders. So, for example, and I'll end with this, Barack Obama in 2016. Shortly before Trump secures victory in the 2016 election, Barack Obama goes to the United nations and he gives a speech that largely centered on globalization, economic globalization, and he was candid in the speech. He admitted that global trade deals and outsourcing and what we just call globalization has hurt a lot of American workers. He acknowledged that, but he said ultimately it's lifted over a billion people out of poverty around the world. There's never been a better time to live than in the 21st century. This has helped get a lot of people out of poverty. So in other words, what Barack Obama was saying was, even though economic globalization has hurt a lot of American workers, it's contributed to the rusting of the Midwest and so forth. It's been really good for people in the Third World. And that's more important to me. And in the dissertation, I call this the global citizensh ethos, this idea that one's primary allegiance should be to all of humanity, to all of mankind, and not to your fellow citizens. Now, obviously, especially with Trump's recent victory again in our last election, a lot of the American people themselves don't have this moral orientation. In fact, the idea of America first, we might say, is the very antithesis of this global citizenship ethos. So I think that moving forward, this is a very live issue and that it's not going away anytime soon.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Steve Gattaprow is with us. He is a recent grad of Hillsdale College's Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship and his dissertation on an introduction to Global Justice Theory. Dr. GOP, thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Dr. Steve Gadaprow]

Thanks, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Dr. Kevin Porteous from Hillsdale's Politics department, Titus Tekkera from the American Cinema foundation, and Dr. Steve Gadaprow. 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.