← Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words
Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words
RealClear Politics' Fight for Free Speech with David DesRosiers | Victor Davis Hanson
00:42:18
In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Jack Fowler fills in for Victor Davis Hanson and sits down with David DesRosiers, president of the RealClearFoundation and publisher of RealClear Politics.
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:00]
A
I think one of the things that's been characteristic of the Internet age is that we've all been partisans, closed off in our own partisan cults. We either think the other side is stupid or evil. We're not having Thanksgiving with each other anymore. And what we do is create a news experience. You know, everybody in the business of shaping public opinion and policy use our site to do their jobs. So even the caretakers of closed communities come to our community to actually see what other people are saying. We have bad movies that, you know, can't even fill up a theater in a college town because the Oscars incentivize bad movies. I think our journalism has suffered and really to becoming, I don't know, stenographers and, you know, and launderers of false flag operations because the Pulitzer and the Poke incentivized bad journalism. I think most people living through the past few years, you know, had this type of attitude, eat me last. So they looked at their feet and don't stand up at the moments when they're supposed to, you know, what Solzhenitsyn talked about, what Vaclav Havel talked about. Be not afraid. Foreign.
- [01:13]
B
Well, hello, ladies, and hello, gentlemen. Welcome to Victor Davis Hansen in his own Words, even though there's no Victor Davis Hansen here, I'm Jack Fowler, I'm the host of this podcast. And as many of our regular listeners and viewers know, Victor is recuperating from major surgery that he had right before Christmas. And he's asked that the Daily Signal and I carry this podcast broadcast on until he recovers. And he is recovering. He is recuperating, folks. So what we're doing in these few weeks, and by the way, we're recording on January 8th and this episode will be up on January 15th. We are bringing important people, right, David? You're important. We're bringing important people on. Yes, meaningful people, consequential people. And I'm asking them five questions. And David Derogia, my dear friend, who is the president of RealClear Media Fund, and he's the publisher of RealClearPolitics is here with us today to discuss a little of the meaningfulness of real clear, but more importantly, its fight for free speech. And we're going to hear from David and he's going to answer five questions when we come back from these important messages. We are back with Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. David is. I told you what his title is. David's from Massachusetts originally. He is a graduate of Assumption College, now Assumption University. I don't know if there are any colleges left in America, David. I think they're all universities. You have a master's degree from. Is it from Fordham?
- [02:50]
A
Yes, and it's in political science and a PhD as well.
- [02:57]
B
Okay, okay. Oh, doctorate. I'm a pioneer there.
- [03:02]
A
I'm an authority.
- [03:03]
B
Yeah, you are. You are indeed. David is also a friend of Victor Davis Hansen and more than I, I've eaten at Victor's house. I think you've actually slept at Victor's house.
- [03:12]
A
I have. Very pleasant. He makes sure that the air conditioning kicks on at 85.
- [03:20]
B
Yeah. Well, that's kind of cool given that it's usually 110 in the shade out there in the wintertime. David, thanks very much for joining. I really appreciate it. So question number one for you, my friend. Everyone must pick sides in America, so we're told, or so we're ordered. And especially media entities are expected to pick sides. But Real Clear, which is, I think you're in what year? 26 now?
- [03:47]
A
25. We're going to be or turning 25.
- [03:49]
B
25. You're 20 this year. Okay. Real Clear has taken, has a different take and it's not taken sides in this time of relentless partisanship. David DeRosa, what is real Clear's vision and why is Real Clear good for America?
- [04:08]
A
Well, I think, you know, we, we live in a world that's divided. We live in a nation that's divided. We're what? We're, we're red and blue America. We're a 50. 50America. And while the Internet and the logic of it was to, to, to create communities of, of really complete and intense sympathy for the same things, we actually went counterintuitive and we said we want to maintain a place where both sides get their news and where viewpoint diversity, which is the hallmark of the First Amendment is actually demonstrated daily. So if people come to our page, what do they see? They see rival institutions, reputable institutions saying different things about the same reality. And what I think that is, it's, it really is viewpoint diversity, First Amendment at its best, best. But it also really just kind of just invites people to think outside their tribe. And I think one of the things that's been characteristic of the Internet age is that we've all been partisans closed off in our own partisan cul de sacs. We either think the other side is stupid or evil. We're not having Thanksgiving with each other anymore. And what we do is create a news experience that I think some of the, you know, everybody in the business of shaping Public opinion and policy use our site to do their jobs. So even the caretakers of closed communities come to our community to actually see what other people are saying. But to your point that the benefit of that is that, you know, the reason why we have a First Amendment is because you have to in some respects maintain and keep the scientific method of civics where people disagree about the most important things. And how you reach a common good is by understanding what is true in the other or good in the other, or shared good and giving that. It's like it's expression. And I think we've been doing it for now, 25 years, you know. You know, the good news is that we're not elite. 2. Like, we don't have competitors for some reason that want to compete with us to actually sow both sides. But I think to the degree that the American mind is bipolar, I mean, we're a prescription to that. You know, we are that watering hole, you know, where everybody starts and spends their day that allows for, you know, jackasses and elephants to kind of have a common news experience. And we think that, that, you know, while we're splitting apart, I think maybe one of the reasons why we haven't is because Real Clear has kept us together.
- [06:51]
B
So Real Clear is an aggregator of articles, links to politics. It is called Real Clear Politics, updated twice a day with a number of other subdivisions. You have Real Clear Military, realclear, culture, books, religion, education, energy, et cetera. So there's a vast array of links. Your polling linkage and info is probably unsurpassed, but you do also generate original content too. So.
- [07:22]
A
Yeah, I mean, if there's one thing out there that I think most people associate Real Clear with, you know, it is the Real Clear polling average. And I think it's something that a lot of people have taken for granted. And, but it's, it's, it's one of these kind of. You asked, you know, your question is like, what good comes of us? I mean, the Real Clear polling average has kept the, you know, the commanding heights of polling, like within the guardrails. Right. So, you know, I think our average has kind of kept, you know, our politics from actually becoming, you know, we're polling instead of being a predictive measure, becomes something where it's a push measure to create a climb of opinion that allows for elections to be stolen, quite frankly. And I think what we have done is we've, we've, we've, we've come up with something that every year I'm going to tell Your audience. The secret formula of it, we take a number of polls, we put them together and we divide by the number. And it turns out to be very predictive of what's going to happen on a given election. And while it's been attacked every year, we can always expect someone to go after the Real Clear average because they don't like what it's saying. Lo and behold, you know, Tuesday night or Wednesday, it looks like we had done pretty well. And regarding the other parts, Real Clear Enterprises, we take that same method of, you know, viewpoint diversity and we build like what? Like characteristics, important subjects. Almost like the newspaper used to have the folds where you get your business section, you get a religious section, you get a policy section. Wherever there is kind of a diversity of thought and a depth of interest, we stand up something that we think brings light instead of heat or light born of heat. Because when we really put things together, we really aren't like this one hand or the other hand. We're putting rivals up for our readers to decide.
- [09:25]
B
Well, you are a for profit. We're going to talk about a nonprofit aspect of RealClear. And so you understand, David, that for profits need to make money by advertising. And here's how. An ad for our listeners and viewers. If you want to drop extra pounds, boost energy levels, or reduce swelling in your legs and feet, then this message is for you. Pure Health Research is on a mission to make America healthy again. And two of their best selling health supplements are leading the way. The first is Liver health formula. Over 100 million Americans have a sluggish liver riddled with fatty deposits. This can kill your metabolism, pile on the pounds and make you feel tired. And Liver Health Formula takes care of all that. It supports thriving liver health with special nutrients like artichoke extract and milk thistle. This is one of the easiest ways to slim down and revitalize your energy levels. And then the next is lymph system Support. If you struggle with fluid buildup or swelling in your legs, ankles or feet, this is for you. The natural ingredients in lymph system support help gently flush extra fluid and toxins out of the body. Now, right now, for a limited time, you can get 35% off liver health Formula and lymph system support along with 50 plus health supplements that Pure Health Research has to offer. Head over to PureHealthResearch.com and use the coupon code Victor at checkout. That's PureHealthResearch.com with the coupon code Victor to save 35% on your order. Today, and we thank the good people of Pure Health Research for sponsoring Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. One more question before we take a break. I'm here talking with David Derogia, the publisher of RealClear Politics, the president of RealClear Media Fund. We're talking on January 8th for an episode of Victor Davis Hanson In His Own Words. That'll be up on January 15th. David, we're going to talk separately about the special effort you're taking on behalf of free speech. But first I wanna focus on what you endure as a publisher. And I used to be a publisher national. I know, as you know, that's where we first met. So we take on slings and arrows and axes in the back of the head sometimes for some reason. Real Clear. Despite everything you told us before about what its mission is, it has a target on its back. David I wanna know, and I think our listeners might wanna know, why would Real Clear Politics, why would someone have an axe to grind with it? And what has been the actual consequence of these, this kind of axe grinding?
- [12:12]
A
Yeah, well, I mean, I mean, no.
- [12:17]
B
Cursing, by the way.
- [12:18]
A
Now, I'll do my best. I'll do my best. We get punished for the very method that I described. So what, you know, Philip Hamburger will say is the evidence of the First Amendment, which is viewpoint diversity. We have had a target on our back because that's our, in fact, our method to kind of, you know, get to the, you know, the point for your, your listeners is that we live in a 50, 50 nation. The people who are the guardians of advertising, the people who come up with lists that advertisers use in order to guide their spends. Right. Real Clear is put on like a do not buy list. Sometimes we make it in a top 10 blacklist or just above the bubble right before it would enter that territory. And the reason why is because we show another side from what the corporate media and the mainstream media is selling. You know, so RealClear entered the world to create dialogues, to bring a dialogue to what we saw was a monologue, right? And then lo and behold, people like monologues. So they've used the auspices of advertising ratings to really do something that you've known as a publisher from your times. It's like, you know, we came online in 2000, but prior to that, prior to the Internet, really, I mean, you know, as a publisher, like, you know, Mother Jones. Right, left wing, left, left wing, intellectual magazines would get mainstream advertisers. The National Review wouldn't. So there are, there's Always been a, you know, a bias against conservatives. It's the reason why I think the, you know, the whole philanthropic infrastructure for magazines and journals really developed on the conservative side, less with the liberal side, because the liberals had the access to money. Right. But it's like with the Internet, everybody thought that that was going to change. Then, you know, we were going to get back to the Don Draper days where, you know, Don Draper, the role of advertising has always been to maximize customers and therefore profits, to take something that's doing good, put a jingle on it, get it in front of the right people, and then increase the market share. That's not the case. Right. With the Internet, when it first started, it was the case. And that's where you saw companies like ours come in and do well, Breitbart, do well on the conservative side of it. But when 2006 happened and the fruits of the election came and populism showed itself and the consequence of what happens when you have a fair and open media, I think the folks in charge didn't like the consequence of it, and they really went in with this GDI stuff, using Covid as Covid as a reason to justify it, and they went in there and they browned out free speech through advertising starvation. And I think that's an important note that is like the way that you can censor people is to starve them of income. And I think that is some. That's characteristic of. Of all conservative media projects, those who actually, you know, conservative media projects that would kind of side with the corporate media side and get themselves in line, as opposed to being a critic of maybe Covid closing of our marketplace, you know, transgenderism, you know, if you. If you follow that line, you would be compensated for it. But if you did what Bill Buckley thought, the ABD initiative of the conservative movement, or even a good citizen was to stand in front of a lie and say, stop, you get punished for it. And that's the world that we live in. It's less bad. I think when Biden was president, it looked like the Overton window on free speech was closing. Trump's election, it looks like it's half open, but efforts are being made by folks like Eric Schmidt in the Senate, Jim Jordan in the House to kind of open up the advertising market. But the advertising market is not friendly to your ideas and conservative ideas, and therefore we get punished for that and the ranking that we get. But just so you know, we're not going to quit you. We're not going to quit you. We're going to make sure we cover both sides.
- [16:56]
B
Well, ideology has marched through all the institutions, including Madison Avenue, and as you mentioned before, National Review. Boy, do I know that very well from my years there. Well, David, we're going to take a break and when we come back, we're going to talk about a Russian word, samizdat. We'll be right back after these messages. We are back with Victor Davis Hansen in his own words. I'm Jack Fowler. I am filling in for Victor at Victor's request and demand. Victor did not want this podcast to stop halt while he himself was recuperating from his major surgery. By the way, I talk to. Well, I communicate with Victor every day, and he is deeply appreciative of all the outreach, all the prayers that have come his way. I think millions of people have been praying for him. I know dozens of priests super sang masses for him. So that's pretty cool. We'll have to make Victor Catholic after all that, David. So that's a side project. Anyway, I want you to tell us about the Samizdat prize. I want you to tell us what Samasdat is, first of all. But then tell us about the prize. Why was it established and what do you hope it accomplishes and how has the response to the creation of this been? And it's all one big.
- [18:15]
A
You might have to remind me of these multiple iterations.
- [18:19]
B
Well, tell us about the Real Clear Media Fund, which is the part of Real Clear, the associated part nonprofit part that has as its mission the Samistat Prize.
- [18:33]
A
Well, I mean, samistat, it's a Russian word that simply means underground publishing. I mean, as I told you, I thought, you know, starting in 2016, that we, you know, the United States was entering kind of Anwellian inflection point. You saw people being canceled. You saw like, you know, people, you know, I, we felt personally ourselves finding ourselves being censored through advertising, starvation. So we wanted to create a prize that, you know, kind of made it clear that our diagnosis of our. The present circumstance is not positive. You know, that, you know, while the first speech, free speech and First Amendment is first in the order of our amendments, I mean, it wasn't doing well in, you know, in actuality. So we started this thing and the goal of it was to really identify and highlight people who manifested First Amendment courage. You know, that whole stand in front history and yell stop. Those people are rare in number, right? And what we wanted to do was highlight those rare in number with the idea that they would, you know, inspire other people to you know, kind of grow their numbers. If I. So what's the purpose of a prize program? Why add another prize program to everything? And I think the argument that I would give is that we have bad movies that, you know, can't even fill up a theater in a college town because the Oscars incentivize bad movies. I think our journalism has suffered, right, you know, and really to becoming, I don't know, stenographers and, you know, and launderers of false flag operations, you know, because the Pulitzer and the Polk incentivized bad journalism. What we wanted to do with the Samista, which we're calling for popular sake sammies now, was that we wanted to give an award that would come up and honor the very types of people that we need to be more like, right? So we look for folks that are two things not only have paid a price for what they've done, but they've paid a price for the right thing. They're self conscious of what they're doing, their commitment to the First Amendment. They have the courage to not look at their feet, which I think is the tendency of most people. It's like, I think most people living through the past few years had this type of attitude, eat me last. So they looked at their feet and don't stand up at the moments when they're supposed to. What Solzhenitsyn talked about, what Vaclav Havel talked about, be not afraid. So every year we get together, we put on, you know, our tuxedos, you know, we ask you all to overpay for a beautiful evening at the breakers. It's at February 11th this year. Mark your calendar, please come. But it's with the idea that, you know, you get the world, you praise Jack, you know, you know, so if you want a better world, praise better. And what we try to do is single out those folks that our central casting stand out perfect of what we're about. You know, this year, you know, we got to, you know, we like, we got a wonderful group of people to. To honor. I mean, surprise, surprise or not surprise, surprise. You know, it's impossible to be who we are without giving honor to, you know, you know, to Charlie Kirk, to Turning Point, to Erica Kirk, and to all those people that actually stood up when really the trial was happening and continued that important man's work so that we have there. The other is Alan Dershowitz. I mean, you want to talk about a commitment to free speech and a constant through time. You know, he's like a Peter Pan of The, of the First Amendment. The guy is forever young. He'll ever, he'll forever show up. He, he hasn't grown old with this. And you know, one of the, you know, you look at the aclu, for example, like the aclu, like used to stand for something. It doesn't stand for the something that it used to stand for, right? I would even make the argument it stands for censorship, but Alan Dershowitz still stands for, you know, free speech. And you know, one of our past award winners, Jonathan Turley, wrote a book called the Indispensable Right. And one of the things that Jonathan argued is that if you look at the First Amendment and you're trying to find limits to it, he said it's better to look at the free speech more as an absolutist, a free speech absolutist. So I think Turley has fought himself to the position that Allen has had since the beginning. And, and the other guy is, you know, so we have two people, like the, the first two are self evident of why we're doing it, but you know, the third is, you know, is to kind of look outside the United States and look to really our, kind of like our first look over at the UK and see the state of free speech over there by one of our prize winners, right? And this year's is this, this guy, George Linehan. And it's like his story is just fantastic. No, no, he's, he's an Irishman who, who. An Irish guy who lived in England was very famous for doing a very well regarded, you know, series, right, called Father Tet. You know, so you have someone who got real renown. And then one day he did something terrible. He liked the post made by somebody else that actually thought that this movement towards gender reassignment, separating children from their parents, letting the state make decisions, you know, for children was a bad idea. And then, you know, he was, he was welcomed to the reception of Louis ck, Right? They just went after him and, you know, here's a guy that was dispossessed, right, that was attacked. His reputation's in shred. He was no different from J.K. rowling, who suffered the same thing with the one difference. He didn't have J.K. rowling's money. But every day in London, you know, this Orwellianism that caused us to create this program, I call it Samistat. Samista is over. Like if you want to speak freely over in the uk, you're in trouble. I mean, there are people going to jail for this, losing their jobs and, you know, we wanted to kind of take this program and give it a more global expression. But I also remembered it like I talked to a friend of mine over there, Sir Toby Young. Now, he got an upgrade and was made a sir. And we were talking about things during COVID and he said, hey, David, this whole mind virus, right, that's taking over the world, it's of American origin, but the problem is you do not expect export the First Amendment with it. And so I think what we have to do as Americans, and it was good to see that it's part of Trump's national security doctrine that he put forward in strategy, is that making sure that the UK Making sure that Europe keeps an open mind, which the open mind is what created Europe and its civilization, that it continues.
- [26:27]
B
David, why don't I find this real clear? No, just if I want to go to this event at the breakers on February 11th, I'm going to look for it on what Real Clear Media Fund. Google that.
- [26:40]
A
And Google it. Look on RealClear Politics. Yes. And it's a great evening. It's a great evening. We do hope you come. I think, Jack, you could say you've been there, I think you've enjoyed it.
- [26:53]
B
Yeah, I was there with, yeah, Jay Bhattacharya spoke that year. Dave Rubin, I forget who else was there, but it was a great evening. Yeah, terrific. Terrific evening.
- [27:05]
A
And even if you can't come, it's something to get behind and support where, as Jack pointed out, we've had an axe on our back or something or, or targeted on our back. And it's like, you know, we're doing this not out of largesse of money that we have. You know, we're crowdsourcing this. We're, we're, we're, we're building a program and an evening that we hope will kind of, you know, you know, create greater support. But every year that we do this, because we're only in our third, it's a struggle. What we've done is like the Pulitzer gives out 5,000, $15,000 prizes. We give out three $25,000 prizes. And, you know, but this is an idea, a movement that's bigger than an event. And like, we're better together. If you, if you think free speech is important, you have any affection to the, any three people that I mentioned, when you go to our website, you'll see past recipients. I think we've demonstrated for an eye for needed talent and, but, you know, this only works when we were, when we joined together. The left is Networked, they're funded. The people who want to close down free speech in the name of dismiss and mal information, you know, they have government money, they have philanthropic dollars. And what we need to do is kind of stand up and you know, and David's can beat Goliath, but they like we got to stitch together at David. And we invite you to join us. And my name's Dave.
- [28:38]
B
Well, let me ask you a quick fourth question before we take a break. I won't use a five year plan because that's pretty Stalinist. Three year is a general rule of thumb for strategic planning, but just longer term, just use whatever comes to your mind as defines long term. What are the long term plans for samizdat and what is, what do you want to see its consequence five, seven years from now?
- [29:10]
A
Well, I mean I think, I think Samast is something that, you know, we'd like to see exist as long as we exist. Right. And we hope. And we hope that's a very, very long time. Right. So well past five, well past 20. I think what we want to do is build an institution that rivals, you know, the Pulitzer and rivals the Oscars, but does so for free speech. You know, I would just say to the folks, like, the future of the American mind, at least its openness, you know, and really trying to, to kind of bring us together, you know, that's not easy. Right. You know, as I said before, it's like we live in a world where within the soul of every American, every human being is a problem that I think that the First Amendment addresses up front. We all think if you disagree with us, you're either dumb or evil. I don't think that problem goes away in two, three, five years. I think it's part of the body of man and the body of politics and it certainly, I think is running crazy in our present circumstance. I think we have to get our American mojo back on the First Amendment, right. You know, it even like revisited like Jefferson's like law of toleration was. It's like, you know, you can, you can pursue your ends, go at, go after it, but you can't do it with coercion. And I think we have to remind every American that your understanding of the good does not allow you to coerce another. And the moment that you do, you're outside of the First Amendment protections, you're outside of the social compact, you know, because you know it's not right. It leads to the destruction of everything good and real about us.
- [31:00]
B
Well, that will be, I will tease that out of you. A little more on our fifth and final question of David DeRosa when we come back from these final important messages. We are back with Victor Davis Hansen in his own words, recording on. When is it? Thursday, I forget. January 8th. And this episode will be up on the 15th. David. Professor David or Dr. David, you have your doctorate. You're a man of perspective and a student of the American experiment. How intertwined is the honesty of the press and the stability of the Republican? Do you believe our press is biased? And if so, by only a matter of degrees, say, from the days of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson? Or. Or is it a problem? Or if it has a problem, is it less a matter of partisanship and more an inability to understand even the concept of objectivity?
- [32:05]
A
Well, I mean, I think if we want more honesty out of our press. Right. And a greater level of trust, we have to be honest about what the press is at its present circumstance. You know, I think folks like, have looked. Looked back, you know, between, you know, and the editor at, you know, our executive editor, Carl Cannon lived this time. He was part of this time. He participated. There was a golden age of, you know, of journalism where, you know, everybody. It's like there was a common creed, and it was like even the difference between Democrats and Republicans were of degree and not kind of. So I think that golden age was a product of, in some respects, a common ethos and a common good and with bringing in a certain habit of mind that was taught in universities and trickled down to create a notion of journalism that really, I think, meant to inform the American mind, but to keep us together. Right. I think. I think that time is dead. It died before the Internet. Right. It probably died, you know, right. When, you know, shortly after Cronkite, like, moved on the Vietnam War, like, there. There was a movement afoot, and it was not like it was to get back to something like where more. It's more a partisan war of perspectives between people of generally red and blue persuasion. Right. But the difficulty I think that we have now in the press is that, you know, there are a lot of people who want to claim that mantle. You know, oh, we're, you know, you know, we have standards. The reasons why, you know, you know, we're right, they're wrong, they're dumb or evil is because, like, they. They wear the hat, right.
- [33:59]
B
Of. Of.
- [34:00]
A
Of that older profession. And. And I think most people have recognized that that's a joke, right? Like, you know, if you ask me, my opinion of, like, you know, the mainstream As a whole, like, there's a. I heard this out. I went out to Texas recently. It's all hat, no cowboy. You know, it's. It's, you know, it's a. It, you know, it's something. It's a peril. It's not the purpose. It's not who they are. And, you know, I think we. Where we are now is. We're pretty much back where we started with, you know, this country. When it was founded there. There were rival partisan presses, right? And for some strange reason, they were able to figure it out. And I think they created such a great country and synthesis when it allowed to not be censored and compete to create that golden age of media itself. So I think that, you know, that the solution to the pollution that's presently in our things, it's. It's not, it's not going to be solved with less freedom, less press freedom. It's going to be solved with more. And I think, you know, that is the pathway out. And the other thing I mentioned, Jack, is like these, these, these people who, like you see it with Barry Weiss right now, right? Like Barry Weiss went to Subsack and created the free speech is because the progressives overcame the liberals in the ranks and they drove them out, right? They. They drove them out for something that was not. That didn't just bubble up from the marketplace of ideas. That's a pedagogy that's been taught from Pre K to PhD. I mean, I think the. One of the big reasons why many of our commanding heights are failing is because they've been corrupted, and they've been corrupted because they haven't been educated on the things that, that keep us together as a people. Right. You know, it's like, who was it? He wrote a. He was. Yeah, I think it was Arthur Schlesinger. He wrote a book called the Disuniting of America. I would say that our educational system has that as its telos, its purpose. And pretty much what we see is, you know, a partisan press, the return of it. And I think we'll all get better when we realize that the other side has an agenda that you should be careful about. You should always think that someone has an interest or an ideology pushing something, and that makes you a better citizen. And it puts the onus on all us to think and read more broadly. And I think if you're interested in that as an enterprise, our site's a place to go to.
- [36:41]
B
Well, I want to thank David for coming on today, sharing his thoughts about free speech. Especially but also his experience at RealClear which is a tremendous site. I recommend folks check it out. Of course you should be checking out the Daily Signal also which is the happy home for Victor Davis Hanson in his own words. And do find the link there for the SAMASDOT. Learn about that. Learn about RealClear Media Fund and the great mission they have. David, you've been terrific. Really appreciate your being here. I know Victor would appreciate it also he's a big fan of yours and big fan of Real Clear. So thanks for that. Thanks folks for watching. Thanks for listening and we'll be back soon with another episode of Victor Davis Hanson in his own words. Bye bye.
- [37:31]
A
Thank you.
- [37:32]
B
Thank you for tuning in to the Daily Signal. Please like share and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website@victorhansen.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.